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


other portions Of the, District contained in
the map. and outside Of existing subdivis-
i3ns, until such time as. In then Judgment,
public convenience shall require, and this
exercise of discretion Is made subject to
review by the court, These requirements
seem to have been ignored in section Is,
which seems to contemplate an award Of
benefits IN all lands benefited by opening
up any particular highway. So, as said by
Mr.. Justice Cox: If k1e jury were to con-
slider what property outside of the SUBJ
division would be benefited by so much of
the new highway as iaes within that SUBJ
jury IN passing upon an adjacent subdivis-
ion might in return assess benefits anew
upon the lots in this subdivision, and thus
the assessment of different juries might
overlap and be doubled upon the unfor-
tunate lot holder
IN the same way assessments might be
further made to overlap In the later open
ing of a street to the District boundary.
THE other sections of the act show that
Congress regarded IL as unwise to open
street to the District line sooner than
the public convenience shall demand
whereas, it was considered important to
at once rectify tie existing subdivisions
and conform them to the general plan
These We're partly built upon and would
provements with probable rapid increase
OF values and consequential damages to be
compensated for. w
Why 1t Is Imperative.
In our opinion. section Is is inoperative
by failure to conform to the necessary
operation of sections and T. To accom-
pllsh the object Of speedy condemnation
ana rectificaton of streets in localities
"here important, some provision shopld
have been made for the creation of definite
taxing districts, including one or several
supaitisions and sections adjacent, where
1t might appear to be expedient and iust
so that the work of condemnation lawns
or and assessment of expenses of streets
could take place promptly without com
plication with others
Another defect Is that the assossr,en+s
when confirmed by the court, shall hear in
terest from date of such confirma ton not
"ithstanding the fact that Congress NAV
not accept them, If at all, for wear nos.
slbly. under the provisions of section IS
D. That Congress has made no appropria-
lion for the immediate payment Of the com
Iensation that may be assessed does not
render the act invalid.
Ihat 1t had the right to authorize the
commissioners TO withdraw, after iuds-
nent rendered in a similar proceeding
where the money had been appronrtated IN
advance. has been decided. Ross apt II s
ex rel. Prospect Hill cemetery, "A ". L. r
Here no appropriation Is made. but II &c
u, mat IN case 1t is not made with
IN the period Of six months, Congress he
ing IN session for that time after such
award, or for the period OF six months af-
Ter the meeting of the next session of Con-
gress, the proceeding shall be void and tho
iand snail revert to the owner
Inc last words meaningless for the
itie cannot pass out of the owner until
Sayment made or security provided for.
Sweet agt Rechel, $50 u s ,SO 401 a0i
Besides. the first clause of the section nro
nlnits the possession of the Commissioners
lof the District, until the appropriation
ally paid. at
IL Is a serious Inconvenience. and may
IN some instances. result in injury to the
private owner, that he may have to remain
r a. nuspehse awaiting the appropriation by
congress; but this is an incident of the ex,
elclse OF the power that cannot be wholly
avoided, and against which there Is no
remedy provided it. beiiDot prolonged for
an unreasonable period. (Shoemaker "
U. s., III L. s., 2S2 32L.)
me same practical Injury may follow
the institution of proceedings by a private
corporation as the result of protracted liti-
CATION; though, in such case the land
owner would probably Have a right of ac-
ton for actual damages against the cor
poratlon in the event of it's withdrawal
therefrom .
Does Not NuIIify the Whole Act,
f. Tho 1ezt proposition urged in support
or the judgment is that If the invalidity
either of sections II ard 49, or both, be
established. the act. as a whole, becomes
imperative and must therefore be de-
clared void.
I'VE cannot agree to this contention.
The controlling object of the act evidently
Is to provide uniform plan for the ex-
tension of the streets and avenues of the
city OF Washington throughout the Dis
trict of Columbia and to rectify all evist
ing subdivisions and bring them into con-
formity herewith. Ross V. Goodfellow, 23
w. L. R., 1867
Even il the whole of section II had been
declared void, the general object of the act
Unmarried oh irnr
to the public interest in giving immediate
effect to the operation of the act in the ex-
listing subdivisions. it might have been
omitted, along with its attendant proyis-
ions, without detriment to the general OBJ
ject to be accomplished
What has been said of section IL ap-
plies with greater reason to section Is
which has been declared invalid. That sec
ton might well have been omitted alto
gether. 1t is but one Of the modes in
winch the property condemned may be in
part paid for. If, in fact, the policy of as
sess!nS benefits in order to pay for the
opening Of streets is to be generally pur-
sued, it would be more nearly just. as well
as conducive to certainty of ascertainment,
If the assessment should be made to fol-
low upon the actual condemnation and
opening Of the street through a definite
territory.
1T is only when different clauses Of an
act are so dependent upon each other that
1t Is evident the legislature would not have
enacted one of them without the other-as
when the two things provided are neces-
sary parts of one system-that the whole
act will fail with the invalidity of one
clause. When there is no such connection
and dependency, the act will stand, though
different parts Of it are rejected Hun
tington " Worthen, 100 U. s.. p. 1G2; Pack
ct Co. V. Keokuk, % U. s., so, SO; Pondex-
ter ". Greenhorn, ia U. s., 27O; Reagan v.
Farmers L. and T. Co., 154 U. S., ST., 395.)
Public, Necessity VS.. Private Con-
venience.
"o-Thc next and last objection taken to
the act SIS a whole is that the record of the
maps provided for therein amounts to
taking of the land in the sense that it inter-
feres with the enjoyment thereof by the
owners, to an injurious extent beyond the
power Of Congress without a provision for
compensation. This question. though not
decided, was to some extent considered In
Ross VS.. Goodfellow supra, where some OF
the probable Inconvenience of the act
were alluded to.
THAT the act is not an unauthorized
encroachment upon the rights of the land
owners is, we think, settled by the prin-
ciples enounced by the Supreme Court of
the United States in the following cases:
Shoemaker VS.. us. 147, us. 2S2 231, Pros
ser vs. North. Pac. r. r. 1872, US 80. 63, Is.
Similar statutes are quite common
~.