Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-04-24


void. This order" the chief justice con-
clldes. I'm my opinion, should be reversed.
and the cause reInanded to the court below,
SO that the verdict of the jury may be
set aside. and that the appellants (the
Commissioners Of the DISTRICT be allowed
to move for such other and further pro-
proper"
After referring to the fact that the
grounds for Judge Cox's decision rest on
sections IL and Is of the highway act, Mr..
Chief Justice Alvey says: There is GER
tainly no sufficient ground for contending
that any Of the other sections and pro-
visions OF the act are amenable to consu-
tutlonai objection. The most that can DO
urged against some Of them is. that they
may give rise to difficulties In their prac-
teal application. But this grows out of
the nature and peculiar circumstances of
the subject matter of the act, and not out
OF any constitutional prohibition applicable
to the case.
The Disputed Sections.
After quoting those two sections, the chief
justice says the first question is, What will
constitute just compensation for private
property taken for public use, to crafty
the requirement of the fifth amendment to
the Constitution? He holds that where part
Of land Is taken. benefits that may accrue
10 the remaining part shall be taken into
consideration and allowed in estimating the
amount or just compensation for the part
taken That he not only thinks is fair and
Just, but Is certainly supported by the great
preponderance of authority in this country.
Judge Cox, he continues, conceded the ex-
lstence OF this general principle, yet con-
ciuoed that there was such difficulty in
ascertaining the benefits with certainty and
precision, and such uncertainty as to the
time when such benefits would actually
accrue to the remaining parts, that the pro-
vision for such special benefits was null and
vold, and could not, therefore, be enforced
But l do not think such construc-
ticn ought to be adopted. Every reason
able intendment should be INDUCED in
order to maintain the act in it's entirety
1t is only when no other reasona BILE
construction can be supported that an act
OF congress, or any part of it, can be de-
clared to be unconstitutional and void or
Invalid for any cause"
Thinks Benefits Mny Be Assessed.
The chief justice agrees with counsel
that 1t Is true that what will constitute
Just compensation for land taken is a oues-
ton for the courts. and not for the lesis-
lature. to determine, but it is for the lesis-
iature to determine what private property
may be needed, and when ii shall be taken
Tor public use and he thinks after refer
ring to Judges Cooley and Dillons works
that 1T is competent for Congress, in legis-
lating for this District, to require benefits
TO remaining parts of land taken if any
Dement'S there really be, to be estimated
and considered in estima ting the lust COM
pensation for the parts taken as provided
for in section II of the highway act
Public Necessity.
Referring to the objection that the act
makes no provision for the immediate
opening and completion of the improve
ments-that is. that the benefits are too re-
mote and uncertain to form an element in
estimating the present value Of the land
taken-Mr. Chief Justic Alvey says the OBJ
lection does not seem to be wei founded
DTnviSinng of no 81 mt
taken into consideration. I'm constituting
this statute" he says, I'VE must bear in
mind the great object and purpose in
tended to be accomplishment extension
of the present city limits so as to conform
to the original plan of the city of Washing
ton as projected by President Washington
ana those intrusted with the adoption of a
plan and the laying out of the national
city, a plan which contemplated the ulti-
mate extension of the city to the limits OF
the cession, If that should be found ueces-
SaTy."
That extension, he explains cannot be
accomplished all at once. or within any
very short time, but must, in the nature
or the work, be done gradually as the pub
lie needs may require the improvement.
or This all land owners in the District
must be taken to have knowledge. and the
plan OF extension, he remarks. is intended
TO subse1Ve great public object, indeed
i.ecessity, and also to promote the private
li'tercsts of property holders along the
lines of improvements. That some delay
AID Inconvenience to adjoining proprietors
may occur are consequences that may
reasonably be expected; but the plan of
extension should not declares the chief
justice. be defeated because some persons
may sufer inconvenience or even be made
TO suffer some consequential loss by the
Improvement projected Of. CONSTRUCTED. 1t
Is lair, lie thinks, to presume that the i'm
provements Will be made without unneces-
Ssry delay.
The rest of the chief Justices opinion
relates section I nf no
cludes as above mentioned IN