The times., 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


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 Shiras, 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, and John 3. Wight
and other Commissioners of the District
Of Columbia, appellants, Us. Charles n.
Davidson. and A. A. Wilson and John B.
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, 1893. filed a petition in the Supreme
Court of the District, stating that the
| owners of the Koll tract had dedicated to
! the District, for highway purposes, the
land in that tract within the lines of S,
| Twenty-second, 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 jury to assess the damages,
if any appeared.
The Supreme Court on July 81, 1899, or
dered that a 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 ad-
jacent pieces of land which would be ben
Gifted by the opening of the streets, and
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 apDellees flied
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 rs the KoIl tract. The
exception held that the award of dam
ages was not warranted by the statute;
that the act was unconstitutional and
void because il did not provide for any
notice TO the owners Of property in ad-
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 S11nrenoa Court on Novenober 1S
1888. 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 vacate the de-
cree and for other proceedings as might
| be proper. From the decision the District
! Commissioners appealed TO the United
States Supreme Court. In delivering the
opinion Of the court Justice Shiras said
1--WE think the Court of Appeals in re-
EaTding the decision of Norwood VS..
Baker, as OVerrulfng our previous decis-
ions in respect to Congressional legisla-
tion in respect to public local improve
ments in the District of Columbia mis-
conceived the meaning and effect of that
decision. There the question was TO
the validity of a village ordinance which
| imposed the entire cost and expenses of
! opening a street irrespective of the Ques-
ton 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 were 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 10 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 Aopeals of the District is re-
IL 4 Of -.