The morning times., 1896-01-21


The Commissioners side of the argument
In the award for street extension made by
the jury In the Dennison & Leighton sub
division was heard by Judge Cox yesterday
afternoon.
Further consideration OF the motions for a
new trial was adjourned till Wednesday
morning.
Property owners were represented yes
terday by Gen. william Birney, Messrs.
Nathaniel Wilson, Chaplin Brown, w. L.
Cole, Donald Mcpherson, L. II. McReyno
Arthur O'Connor, J. ii. Li,.iiiiter and Others
Special Attorneys A. S. Worthington and
Samuel Maddox represented the District.
As told by the Evening Times yesterday
Mr.. Wilson closed his argument for lot
holders by reading Mr.. Worthington's own
BRIEF before the court OF appeals in the
Prospect Hin Cemetery case. lie said
ironically that he supposed Mr.. Wortnington
would say the argument here applied only
to the. particular case. He aiso cited
Judge CoXs decision III the Rock Creek
Park ease ga inst the assessment Oi benefits
Mcssrs. Cnapin, Brown and C. IL. Armes
foiiowei. MIR. Brown called attention TO
the differences in the Dennis on N Leighton
award from that in the Ingieside suDdivi-
sion. Mr.. Armes argued that the benefits
the land could not bc taken for such COM
pcnsation as proposed.
MR.. MADDOX ARGUES.
Mr.. Maddox, for the government, said in
every State, where not forbidden expressly,
benefits are assessed in taking land Ior
private purposes.
The filing OF the map. he said, was oIl :.
preliminary step and need not interfere in
the least with the rights of owners.
The claim tnat Congress should have
appropriated money 10 pay for the land
WAS unreasona BILE, because 1T was iinpos-
sible TO teal how much would be needed, ana
Congress could not appropriate an Indefinite
sum.
Mr. Worthington followed. saying the
government did not want 10 cause hardship
TO any citizen. Ir the court should find that
the general benefits, under the operation
or the act. became excessive. the govern
ment would not object to their disailow-
ancr. IL was only desired that not too much
De paid for the land taken. BIT prospective
benefits. he insisted, should be assessed.
This is in accordance with general usage.
The assessment OF half the cost OF
the Improvement against the property
left TO owners lie said. was in accordance
with the rule everywhere, except that
usually the total cost was assessed against
the land benefited. That was true every
where except here and in Boston. 1t was
done i'll the origin al In ying o 1t OF the city.
Mr.. WOrthington said he quite accidentally
picked up in New York recently Il copy OF
the revised statutes or Illinois. He found
that while the Illinois constitution is
precisely the same us the Federal Constitu-
lion. the statute providing for condemnation
proceedings goes on ali IoIrs with the law
under discussion. There WAS never any OBJ
lection to ii as unconstitutional.
He said there mign. be a constitutional and
unconstitutional construction OF the law
In that case the court would Ike the con-
stitutional construction
As 20 the provisions TO pay for the lands
taken, he said, Congress could not apprU-
pri1te for lands whose cost has not been
determined. In lhe opinion OF the late
Justice Miller. If this is not actually pro-
nibted by law, ii ought TO be.
FILING THE MAP.
lie denied that the filing of the map CON
stitut.d the taking OF the land, as argued.
He insisted that Congress might have pro-
vlded for tne llying out or streets on such
a map and keeping the map as OF record
without even proposing To condemn lands
and lay ont streets. Sucn action, lie in
sisted, would never be considered as eqIivl-
lent to Ia king the land for street purposes.
Mr.. Wilson admitted this and said he
did not argue that the making and filing OF
the map amounted TO taking the land
Il certainly 50 understand" said Mr..
Worthington. But l see my friend is
gradually retreating to the last ditch and
I'll soon have him there
He then cited several authorities to show
that the recording of the map took away
no rights of citizens. He cited the Good
fellow case to show that while tits claimed
the provision of the law requiring sUbdi-
visions to conform to the proposed street ex-
tension plans render it unconstitutional. the
court held there that the provision is wise
and salutary.
There is no law, he continued, which COM
pels Congress to improve any street. That
body might leave out all provision for im-
proving the streets from the appropriation
bill and yet the appropriation not fail en-
tirely. Congress might even enact that
the streets should not be improved and
there could be no process OF the courts by
which the streets could be compelled to be
improved.
ton as endured before the war. The prin-
cipal argument againstthe law. If true, was
that it was in the interest of the land syn
licatcs who were to profit by 1t very
largely But here come these very land
owners protesting against the law. The
two together form a strong argument in
favor of the law.
lit shows that the law is satisfactory
to nobody" remarked Mr.. Brown.
1t was found that counsel on both sides
will be occupied elsewhere tomorrow, and
the hearing was adjourned to 10 n. IN.
Wednesday.