Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-04-15

thorities almost uniformly hold that a
trial by jury is not a matter of consti-
| tutional right.
| In New York where the constitution
requires compensation for private
property taken for public uses, it was
held In Livingstone V. Mayor of New
York, Wend., 50, that the trial by jury
secured by the constitution applies only
TO cases of trial of issues of fact in civil
ana criminal proceedings in courts of
justice, and has no relation to assess
| ment OF damages of the owners of
property taken for streets or other
| public use and that the mode of ascer-
tanning such damages belongs to the
legislature. The same doctrine is held
in Minnesota under like constitutional
| provisions, in Ames V. Lake Superior &.
| mississippi r. r. Co, u Mimi. PAL, in
| winch the court says, (p. 293) PRO
| ceedings under the right of eminent
| domain, to ascertain the compensation
to be paid in taking private property
for public use, have never been con-
sidered as actions of law within the
meaning of constitutional provisions
| preserving the right of trial by jury;
and except when such proceedings are
expressly mentioned in state constitu-
| tions, the decisions are uniform that
| they do not come within the constitu-
ton"
The same is held in Penn. r. r. Co.
| V. Lutheran Congregation SO Pa. st.
AS; Long Island Water Supply Co. V.
Brooklyn, 166 U. S.. SOS; Garrison V.
| City of New York, u Wall. on4 Scud-
der V. Trenton & Delaware Falls Co.
[ n. j. Ed. 694-721; In re Lower Chat
| ham, 80 n. J. l., 497.
| Third: The third section of the act
| incorporating the Kennebec Water
| District provides that if any person
sustaining damages and said corpora
| ton shall not mutually agree upon the
| sum to be paid therefor, such person
| may cause his damages to be ascer-
| tanned in the same manner and under
| the same conditions, restrictions and
| limitations as are or may be pre-
scribed in case of damages by the lay
| ing out of highways. This gives to
| the owner of the property taken the
ultimate right upon appeal to have his
| damages assessed by a jury. Section
five of the same act provides that if
| the trustees of the Water District fail
pany, the damages shall be assessed by
appraisers to be appointed by the
Court upon bill in equity to be
| instituted by the Water District.
1t is claimed by the defense that the
/ different tribunals thus provided for the
| assessment of damages is violation
of the Fourteenth amendment of the
| Federal Constitution which provides
4 .
of life. liberty or property without due
process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
| lection of the laws In the case at
| bar the act of incorporation does not
deny to any person or to the Maine
Water Company the equal protection
of the laws. 1t provides to each person
| who SustainS damages and to the
| Maine Water Company just COM
pensation. There is no discrimination
or Inequality in that respect. No
| different rule is prescribed for the
estimation of just compensation in
case of individuals and in case of the
| Maine Water Company. The act pro-
vides for competent and impartial
| tribunal in each case with the right of
| the property owner to appear and be
| heard. We think that this is all that
is required by the terms Of the amend
ment to the Federal Constitution
above referred to. The only difference
as to the award of compensation is
one of procedure. AS has already been
shown the legislature has entire dis
erection to designate any impartial
| tribunal to assess compensation,
whether jury, commissioners or APP
| praiSerS. We perceive no reason for
precluding the legislature from pre-
| scribing in the same act for the as
| sessmcnt of compensation by different
| tribunals for different classes of prop
| erty taken, nor are we aware of any
decision of any court holding that the
| legisla tIre is so precluded. Ordinarily
| the compensation for tangible property
taken may properly be determined by
| a jury but when, as in the case at
| bar the property and franchises of a
large corporation are taken for public
uses. and the value. not only of tangi-
BILE property, but of the franchises.
rights. privileges and contracts are
| factors in determining the amount of
| compensation to be paid, the legisla-
ture may well determine that COM
|
| of which have peculiar skill and ex-
perience in such matters, can, better
than a jury do exact justice to the cor
pordtion whose property has been con-
demned and taken.
We are of the opinion that the act
here in question by prescribing a
different tribunal for fixing the
amount Of just compensation to the
Maine Water Company than that pre-
scribed for fixing the compensation
to other parties is not without due
process of law" and does not deny tc
any person or to the Maine Water
Company, THE equal protection of the
laws" and is not repugnant to the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Fedora
Constitution.
Fourth: It is urged as another ground
Of defense that the charter of the Ken
ncbec Water District is unconstitu
tional and void for the reason that /
impairs the obligations of contracts
The argument is that the Watervillt
, Water Company has made valid anc
, now existing contracts for supplying
water to the City of Waterville anc