Evening journal., 1896-03-03
CITY'S PROPOSITIONS.
City Solicitor Harman Pre-
sents Them and Argues.
sANBoRE FOR THG PLAINTIFF

Argument on the ConstitutIonailty OF a
Statute Has Delayed the Hearing OF
Testimony in the Damage Suit OF Mrs.
Seward Against the City-Eo Court To-
day on Account OF II. H. Georges
Funeral
Before the Superior Court yesterday
afternoon. In the case Of Seward vs. the
Mayor and Council OF Wilmington, City
Solicitor Robert q Harmkn resumed
argument on the following propositions
regarding the constitutionality Of the
law relating to the liability OF Individual
owners for the condition Of the sidewalks
fronting their premises.
Mr. Herman set forth his propositions,
which were:
First. There is no common law LA
bility for Injuries resulting from unsafe
or defective highways aud streets.
Second. The liability where 1t exists,
is statutory liability, though this liza
bility need not be imposed In express
terms, but may be implied. and II is
implied whore the municipality Is. (s)
given full control over It's streets; %,
where the duty to keep them In repair Is
enj ,ined upon them; (c) where 1t re
ceives q consideration for the doing of
the work, (d) and whsre the duty is
purely local aud corporate ana not public
or govern II entail.
Third. As the Legislature can impose
the duty and the liability. 80 It can limit
or even completely remove said duty and
liability, unless prevented from 80 doing
by the Constitution cf the United States,
or the Constitution OF our own state.
Fourth And as such a law as the
shove In no way interferes with vested
rights or impsirs the obligation OF con
tracts, the will Of the Legislature is
supreme, and the law, therefore, con-
stitutionsl.
Fifth. But even II 1t be contract las
In the case Of a private corporAtion) II
the state has reserved the right to repeal,
alter or amend the charter Of the cor
poratlon-the exercise OF that right does
rot "impair the obligation OF the con.
tract" This power has been reserved In
our constitution. And its reservation in
the constitution is equivalent to It's IN.
sertion In the charter.
Sixth. Again, but even II It be contract,
las In the case Of private corporation),
and even II there were no clause In our
constitution reserving the right Of
revocation, etc still, IS the law apply
ing to vested rights and to the impairlng
Of the Obligation OF contracts relates
entirely to retrospective and not to
prospective Legislation, and IS the
statute In question WAS passed four
years prior TO the happening OF this
accident, it certainly In this case can In
no way Whatever be construed TO take
awsy any vested right or impair the
obligation Of any contract
seventh II there be any doubt as to
the constitutionsllty OF the law, that
doubt should be resolved In favor Of its
constitutionsllty.
In support Of the above he cited many
authorities bearing upon the several
points OF the controversy and dilated
upon them ir q masterful manner
Andrew Z Ssnborn, for the plaintiff.
followed him. he declared that the act
was unconstitutional, placing upon the
property owner responsibility irrespec-
tive of negligence IL deprives an
individual Of his property aud relieves
the city in It's private character Of a
primary duty which rests upon IL. The
municipality could not be relieved Of It's
own negligence by the General Assembly
The statute In question relieved the city
Of all care Of real estate held In fee
simple
At this juncture court adjourned until
10 o'clock on Wednesday morning, When
Mr.. Sanborn will conclude his argument.