The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-01-22
HIS SIDE.
assistant Attorney
General
. STATES HIS CASE.
Clinton Land Damage
Question in Another Light.


Clinton, Jan. 21.-For the past two
years or ever since the inception of the
mefgepolitan basin project, the town
has been immersed in a series of con-
tIoyersies with its citizens on the one
hhand, and the commonwealth on the
other. In all of this time, the state has
acted in a stern and uncompromising.
filIanner Never until now has it divulged
an iota of evidence as to its purpose, or
provisions, for the territory surround
n Ing or included in the metropolitan
basin.
The most prominent person in these
aSpAtfoVerSles is Assistant Attorney
General Hallower whose name has a
meaning of vital significance to those
WING are looking to the state for land
manages, in consequence of the taking
q fthelr property by right of eminent
domain.
The first act of Mr. HallowelPs that
excited antipathy in Clinton was the
employment of so-called expert APP
pra1sers for the purpose of making es-
inmates, But this was a mere incident
@ the tremendous excitement when the
same gentleman recently moved before
the superior court sitting in Suffolk
* county. to dismiss cases for land dam
ages on question OF Jurisdiction
This motion if successful would have
the effect of depriving the plaintiffs of
the time-honored right of trial by jury,
Defore the superior court, after we'll
Known and long established custom. and
WOULD submit them to a tribunal of
special commissioners appointed by the
supreme court, or, by appeal to a jury
in the supreme court
Ioday Assistant Attorney General
HalloweI breaks the reticence long OBJ
served by the state, in letter written
70 George W. Morse, a wealthy real es-
tate dealer of this town, who has had
much to do with the adjustment of land
manage claims, as the agent of Mr..
HaloWell The letter is important be-
n cause or the frankness with which ii
|S discusses matters of vital interest. af-
y Iectlng a large part of Worcester coun-
" and claims for damages amounting
perhaps, IN all, to a million and half
\ Qoliars. The communication to Mr..
Morse is as follows:
nave received your communication
N regard to the new aspect of the land
damage cases in Clinton, and in order
mat you may understand the present
4s bltuatlon, Will explain in as few words
as possible how the matter now stands.
upon making careful examination of
tne metropolitan water act, as | was re-
II CURED to do in the case of Forbes VS..
pefore the suprem court, / found what
nao previously escaped notice. to wit.
mat there is an ambiguity in the act
Wnlch atfects very materially the rights
oI the commonwealth, and also the
Flgnts or the owners of property This
IN i,naplgulty consists in failure to pro
VIDE explicitly a definite method BY
which the owners of property might
pave their damages determined in
court. One section of the act provides
mat damages shall be determined by
Jury IN the superior court while an
other section provides that damages
snail be assessed by commissioners an
4 pointed by the supreme court, with an
# appeal therefrom to a jury in said SUI
,N preme court. 1t was uncertain howey-
Ter, to which of these classes the land
in Clinton, Boylston, West Boylston
and Sterling belongs.
The question of jurisdiction was
XXI therefore raised. l saw at once that
the following danger existed: A case
H might be prepared and tried, and then,
upon some question of title or water
* rights, or other legal point involved,
might go, on exceptions, to the supreme
AZ court.
The question of jurisdiction is al
b ways open before that court. The court
might, on examination of the act, say
mat the petition as filed by the owner
3 OF the property, was brought under the
n wrong section, and might set aside the
~ entire proceeding, thus involving loss
IN OF time and great extra expense. both
to the commonwealth and the owner
OF the property; this being the case.
thought that the question of iurisdic-
non ought to be determined once for
all before the cases We're tried in order
70 avoid the chance of having the en-
tire proceeding upset before the full
bench of the supreme court, In order
81 to raise this point, l filed a formal mo-
"a ton to dismiss in each case; selected
n one of the cases as a test case. and
argued the point before Judge Bishop
"A In the superior court, The honorable
n justice has had the case under consid-
Grafton now for three weeks, and has
as yet handed down no decision
1 myself am of the ooinion that the
way of reaching the farest result in
these cases is to- have them tried be-
fore jury, selected in the same coun-
ty in which the land was situated who
4 probably knows something about the
value of such property, and whose opin-
ion, therefore, will be more intelligent
than that of persons selected from 9TH
er parts of the state. For this reason
5l have prepared a draft of bill for the
legislature, which, in case Judge Bish-
op decides that the petitioners have
Drought their petitions under the wrong
section, will amend the act, and will
authorize the cases to be tried before a
worcester county jury, in the superior
court The attorney general, in his an
hual report, Will recommend the pas
sage Of this bill
L am gaid that you have communi-