Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1904-07-06

- ~ III any CdSc In winch
the public necessity calls for it.
The only claim against such a
corporation exercising the soy
ereIgnty of the State is claim for
compensation. The constitutional
provision Is not against the taking
or the damaging of property be-
longing To an individual. The only
security it affords to him is COM
pensation in money.
Can a court of equity restrain Il
State or It's agents in the course of
It's work for public improvements
on the ground that compensation
cannot be made in damages /
think not. The only question is
how to afford to the individual
owner a proper method and pro-
ceedure of securing the compensa-
tion to which he is entitled.
Since the former hearing on the
demurrer, the law on the subject
of eminent domain has been en-
acted, and will be found on page
95I of the Acts 1923 and 4.
Under Section 23of that Act. per
sons claiming to have their prop
erty damaged, are required to
appear before the Commissioner
appointed in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and make
their claim for damages. and have
their loss aScertained. Failing to
do so, they are precluded from
setting up their loss in any other
procedure. This law not being i'm
operation at the time of the filing
of the Bill. nor al the time of the
former decree in this case. would
not prevent the Court from afford
ing the complainantS such relief as
they might be entitled to. But il
does seem to me that proper
course To take would be to refer
the parties back to the Court which
now has under the law the power
and the machinery 10 ascertain
their rights and afford proper
relief. The present hearing is
simply on an applicationin vacation
for Il preliminary Injunction; and
| consider that the power of the
Court would not extend to any
final disposition of the rights of
the parties in this suit. | do not
think a decree coulG now be entered
requiring the parties to seek their
relief through the inStrumentaliticS
provided for by that Act. But il
seems TO me that upon the final
hearing of this case, if not the final
hearing, at least upon tie hearing
of the case i'm Term, the proper
course TO pursue will be To dismiss
the Bill of the complainants with
out prediudice, and to require the
County of Clarke to apply to the
Court for 4 rc-opening of the con-
demnation proceedings and To
afford TO the complainantS the
benefit and the opportunity which
the 23rd section of the Act gives
to all such claimants. As | have
said, however, this is an applica-
ton for temporary injunction,
and this the Court denies on the
ground that not only is compensa-
ton in money perfectly feasible, if
the cOmplainantS are entitled to
anything. but is the only compen-
sation and relief To which they are
entitled.
1t does seem To me that the
power of a Court is wholly miscon-
ccived in that feature of this case
which presuppoSeS a power in the
Court to interfere with the discre-
ton of the Board of Supervisors in
the construction of these bridges.
The propriety of building bridges
over the Shenandoah. as contem-
plated, is a matter over which
courts have no jurisdiction. 1t is
for the Legislature and not for the
Courts to consider such questions.
Our government is one in which
the several departments are wholly
distinct and Independent of each
other. On all questions of public
policy. the Legislature is supreme.
1t alone can say whether bridges
shall be constructed or not. And
the agents to which it delegates
this power, are as supreme as the
Legislature itself, within the
powers delegated to them. Courts
can protect private rights, but it
cannot set up the Judgement of the
Judge in lieu of that of thc lcgiSla-