The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-30
AWARDS WITHIN THE LAW
A Supreme Court Decision in the
Street Extension Cases.
The District Commissioners Win
Their Suit-The Action of the Jury
in the Assessment of Benefits Up
heId-Opinion by Justice Shirns.

heiu-opinlon py justice Shirns.
The United States Supreme Court yes
terday handed down decisions in three
cases in which the District of Columbia
was particularly interested. The cases in
volved the constitutionality of several acts
of Congress authorizing the extension of
certain streets. The opinion Of the court.
which was delivered by Justice Shras, re-
versed the Court of Appeals and affirmed
the decision of the Supreme Court of the
District
The cases decided involving the question
of street extension were Allen VS.. The
District of Columbia, Wormley VS.. The
District of Columbia, ard John B. Wight
| and other Commissioners of the District
I Of Columbia, appellants, VS. Charles n.
Davidson. and a. A. Wilson and John p.
Larner, trustees. The latter case is COM
monty known as the S Street extension
case, and involves the assessment of bene-
| fits and damages against property on ac-
count of condemnation for the opening of
streets
The District Commissioners. on March
81, 1899. filed a petition in the Supreme
Court of the District stating that the
| owners of the Kohl tract had dedicated to
the District, for highway purposes, the
land in that tract within the lines of S,
| Twenty-seeond, and Decatur Streets; that
! a map had been prepared OF the proposed
extension of the streets, and praying the
court to direct the Marshal of the District
to summon a jury to assess the damages,
If any appeared
The Supreme Court on July q. 1899. or
dered that jury be summoned to assess
damages and directed that the amount
of damages due and awarded by the jury,
| In respect to the land condemned for the
! opening of streets, not less than one-half
| be assessed by the jury against the pieces
of ground lying on each side of the ex-
| tension of the streets, and also on all adj
jacent pieces of land which would be ben
! Gifted by the opening of the streets, and
I to further proceed in accordance with the
act of Congress approved March 81 1899.
| The awards were duly made and on
| September 10, 1899, the Supreme Court en-
tered an order confirming the awards and
assessment, unless cause should be shown
to the contrary by October 4, 1899.
| On the above date the appellees filed
exception to the confirmation of the
/ awards and the findings of the jury as
| to the owners of the tract of land known
| in the proceedings as the Kohl tract. The
| exception held that the award of dam
ages was not warranted by the statute;
! that the act was unconstitutional and
! VOiG because IL did not provide for any
notice to the owners of property in adj
vance of assessments; that the statute
| related to the condemnation of land
/ solely and contained no provision relative
! to assessment OF benefits; that the assess
mcnt of benefits against property forming
no part of that sought to be condemned
was inconsistent with the statute; that
the description of the property was in
accurate, and that the award of damages
/ was excessive.
The Supreme Court, on November IS,
| 1892 overruled the exceptions and con-
| firmed the awards and assessments as
contained in the verdict of the jury. The
case was then appealed to the Court of
Appeals. where, after argument, the Su-
| preme Court was reversed and the case
remanded with direction to Tacate the de-
cree and for other proceedings as might
| be proper From the decision the District
! Commissioners appealed 10 the United
| States Supreme Court In delivering the
| opinion Of tbs court Justice Shiras said
1--WE think the Court of Appeals in re-
Earding the decision of Norwood VS..
| Baker, as overruling our previous decis-
| ions in respect to Congressional legisla-
| ton In respect to public local improve
| ments in the District of Columbia, mis-
| conceived the meaning and effect of that
| deciion. There the question was as to
| he validity of a village ordinance which
| imposed the entire cost and expenses of
| opening street irrespective of the ques-
/ UOn whether the property was benefited
| by the opening of the street.
| The Legislature of the State had not
| defined or designated the abutting prop
| erty as benefited by the Improvement. nor
| had the village authorities made any en-
| quiry into the question of benefits. There
| having been no legislative determination
| as to what lands We're benefited. no en-
| quiry instituted by the village councils,
and no opportunity afforded to the abut-
| ting owner to be heard on that subject,
| this court held that the eXaction from the
/ owner of private property of the cost of a
| public Improvement in substantial excess
| of the special benefits accruing TO him is,
| to the extent of such excess, a taking.
| under the guise of taxation. of private
| property for public use, without compen-
| sation, and accordingly affirmed the de-
| cree OF the Circuit Court of the United
| States, which while preventing the en-
| forcement Of the particular assessment in
| question, left the village free to make a
| new assessment upon the plaintiffs abut-
| ting property for so much of the expense
| of opening the street as would be found
| upon due and proper enquiry to be equal
to the special benefits accruing to the
| property.
The second proposition upon which the
| circuit court proceeded was that sufficient
| notice had not been given in respect of
the assessments upon the property, This
| question we think, has been disposed of
| by previous decisions"
| The opinion then says the decree of the
Court Of Appeals of the District is re-
Versed and the decree of the Supreme