The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-28
Property Rights i'm Danger.
the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:

To the Editor Of the Indianapolis Journal:
There seems TO be a decided misappre-
hension as TO the character of the bills
pending before the Legislature In regard to
street improvements. The impression is
sought to be made that the owners of
property in this city are trying to secure
legislation intended TO block all street i'm
provements. The fact is just the contrary.
The property owners are satisfied with the
laws as they now are with the interpreted
ton given to them by our courts. 1t is the
contractors that have introduced these bills
and want the street Improvement laws
changed. They are demanding legislation
the purport of which is to take away from
property holders the protection of the
courts and the security of their rights as
citizens. The courts have declared, from
the Supreme Court of the United States
down, that it is not lawful. and cannot be
for public Improvement to greater ex-
tent than the property is benefited by the
Improvement; that to do more is confisca-
ton of private property for public pur-
poses, which is in violation of our state
and national constitutions. Ever since the
rendering of these decisions the contrac-
tors have had skilled lawyers at work to
devise some new legislation by which these
for the protection of property against their
greed. The mountains have been in labor.
and three vicious bills, especially designed
to rob the citizen of his constitutional
rights under the pretext of affOrding him
recourse against outrage. now before the
Legislature. the result.
Driven by the courts TO the proposition
that no individuals property could be as
sessed for public Improvement in
cess of the benefits accruing to the prop
erty by reason of the improvement,
method had to be devised by which the
property holder was given the form of
hearing on this important question, or the
confiscation OF private property would have
TO cease, and cunning scheme was con-
cocted to provide hearing before the
Board of Public Works for the determna-
ton of the matter whether the cost of a
given street improvement to any piece OF
property would exceed the benefits thereto,
and making the finding of the board on
peal therefrom to the courts. In hear
ing before the Board of Works, II no APP
peal was allowed on the question whether
the assessment for street Improvement
exceeded the special benefits, the property
holder would be like the label a cham
payne bottle-on II. but not in 1t.
AS in the past the only question the board
would look to would be as to whether the
property was worth enough to pay the as
sessment Such a statute would vest more
arbitrary power in the Board of Public
Works than II lodges In any otner Drancn
of our whole governmental system. The
right of property is a sacred one, and to
vest in board of three men the absolute
power of determining questions, without
appeal. that go to the very foundation or
that right, is simply monstrous PROPOSE
ton, and one hardly to be expected to be
proposed for the approval of so intelligent
n body of men as compose our Legislature
If the Commercial Club of this city cares
to take upon itself the odium of godfather
ing these bills, as II appears to be doing.
IL is certainly entitled to the privilege of
wading in the mire of municipal filth to its
hearts content. All that the property hold
ers ask In this connection is that IL there is
10 be any additional legislation on the SUBJ
feet of street improvements, their rights as
now provided by statute and fixed by the
decision of our highest court be not i'm
paired These bills embody the rankest
sort of socialism-the right TO appropriate
nrjvate property TO public uses without
compensation. j. II. CLAfPoOL-
indianapolis. Jan. rs.