Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-26
streets, Street Railroads and Prom
erty Owners.

To the Editor Of The Evening Star:
In the discussion of the bill for the er
tension Of the tracks Of the Belt Line rail-
road, the question has arisen as to the
right of property owners to damages.
citizens who are interested do not think
Congress will let their homes be DESTROYED
ana the market value of their property.
whether for their own USE for rental or
sale be seriously injured by the destruction
OF the trees and the parking, which now
give to the street the shade and beauty and
repose which are SO highly priced, without
at least making the railroad corpora ton
liable for actual ascertainable damages. The
United states dedicated the street and
oeautineo II with trees, and appropriated
TN! me spaces for roadway. sidewalk and park
ing Inc planting of the trees was a
pledge that the dedication was made in
good faith and that IL the citizen bought
iand abutting on the street, so dedica ted
ana appropriated, and spent his money in
which had induced him to build would not
allow the character of the street to be
radically changed and its eligibility for
residence destroyed without compensation
To say that the government owns the fee
of the street, and can do with il as II
chooses, without regard to the interests of
the abutting owners. whom il induced to
establish their homes where they are. is to
heather CODA greater scoundrel than any
of his worshipers. 1t has been held by
the highest courts of the different states
that the right of an abutting owner to
damages does not depend upon his owner
ship of the fee of the street. At one time
the supreme court Of New York took the
view that this right did so depend, but the
court of appeals. in the Story case GO, N.
road cases. held that damages could be
recovered for an injury to an easement as
wen as to fee. The reason and right of
the thing have been well stated by the
supreme court of Colorado, in city OF Den
yer VS.. Bayer, Col, l13, as follows:
''The position taken in some of the cases
Is, that, IL the adjoining owner have not
the fee of the streets. and the value of his
property be diminished by so per cent by
the construction of a railroad therein. he
has no redress; while, If he be the FORUM
ate owner of this fee, he may recover not
only for the taking or appropriation of the
streets, but also for the interference with his
easement, and the decrease occasioned in
the value of his premises. Yet. whether he
own the fee or not, his rights In connec-
ton with the street. while 1t remains a
street, are practically the same. His pos
session of his fee in no special way con-
tributes to the use or enjoyment OF his
lot, and enables him to exercise no greater
control over the street than he would have
without Ii. The distinction as to the fee
seems to rest upon the fact that in one
case there is a wrongful incumbrance Of
his freehold, while in the other there is not.
The actual injury is about the same in
both. But while IL the fee rests in the
city, there may be no wrongful incum-
brance of his estate in the sense OF these
cases, there is. under our Constitution. at
least. damaging thereof. for which he Is
entitled to compensation"
Congress can be trusted to eventually
recognize a right which Is now guarded by
the constitutions or statutes of so many
of the states, and to enact some general
1oxx- dar c,,Dh fro he
acquired. under proper conditions. for their
fair market value. What may be accom-
plished in this direction has been signally
illustrated in the city OF Glasgow, as shown
in an article entitled, Street Railroad
Franchises" published in last Wednesdays
Star. D.. c. K.