The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-02-16
CITY HARB0R LINE
 RESTORED TO BEING
OPPONENTS OF ELEVEN ACRE GRAB GAIN BREATHING TIME THROUGH DETERMINA-
 TON OF MAYOR TO HAVE ALI.
Contest for City Rights May Now Be Renewed-City Attorney Sustains Legal Views Expressed by For mer City Attorney Marr--Text of Veto.

l In considering what procedure must l be taken, in the exercise of this power l or eminent domain, in order to pro-
 tect the constitutional rights of the l owners of land, many authorities hold ] that certain questions relating thereto | rest in the exclusive control of the l General Assembly and may be deter | mined either directly by that body or l through some authorized agency with l out notice to the owner of the property l to be affected.
 Whether the particular work of inn provement shall be carried out, or whether the particular property shall be taken, are held by these authorities to be questions of this character, which rest entirely in the determination of the Legislature. The courts, so hold ing, declare that the owner of the property to be taken is not entitled to a hearing' thereon, as a matter of
 right, and that the failure to give a
 notice and hearing is not an invasion
 of his constitutional rights. They
 hold that if he has notice and an Op-
 portunity to be heard upon the ques-
 tion ofabenefits and damages he can
 not complain.
 ''The weight of authority is in ac-
 cord with this doctrine. There are,
 however, many authorities who hold
 that notice must be given oe a hear
 ing of a whole case, in the exercise of
 eminent domain, and that such notice
 shall precede the final determination
 of any essential matter which may
 include the party, including the ques-
 tion Of the necessity for the taking of
 the property.
 Tt is my opinion that the General Assembly could authorize the Common
 Council to establish harbor lines and exercise the power of eminent domain
 for that purpose, without giving notice
 to the land owner prior to the councils determination to make the public im- provement.
 "If it were clearly the intention of the Legislature so to do, there would perhaps be no question as to the valid ity of the power.
 'The contention that the Legislature has conferred this authority upon the Common Council arises from the un- happy wording of Section 5S of the | present charter. Before the adoption of the present charter, it was always upon the Common Council l to give notice to the land owner and hold preliminary hearing. This duty was imposed upon the city by | Section A of the charter, of which the | present charter is a revision. and in | this same section 45, of the former | charter, were likewise contained the 1 requirements for notice and hearing | prior to the establishment of building, | highways, public parks, etc. Section | 58 of the revised charter provides that | termine to make any such public inn 1 referred to in certain pre- ceeding sections which are specified l by number in said section 58, it shall cause reasonable notice to be given.
 Said Section 58 of the revised char ter and section 45 of the old charter are identical, except for the omission io,, of on ,0fn tn hn section which relates to and provides for the establishment of harbor lines. By @ manifest error section 58, instead | of referring to section 57 relative to harbor lines, refers to another section which is entirely foreign to the sub- which a public hearing would be en- tirely out of place. Upon a careful reading of the present charter one can- not escape the conclusion that this re- luirement, relative to a notice and hearing before the estab- ishment of harbOr lines by the Com non Council, was inadvertently omit .ed and that the framers Of the new charter intended to include section 45 )f the old charter as section 5S of the new and make the two identical. Ad- litional evidence of this is found in he fact that the present charter does lot provide any distinct or separate 1eLnOQ TOT lne IdhllS OI pIOpSIly III he establishment of harbor lines.
 Therefore, while the Legislature has the constitutional right o empower a municipal corporation to establish harbor lines without a pre- iminary hearing, yet in view Of the act that this duty has always been imposed upon this city and that the allure to provide for it, in the present evision of the charter, was clearly an oversight and an unintentional om1s- ion, and in view of the further fact hat the authorities are not a unit up- m the question of the necessity of uch a preliminary hearing, I would .dvise you that the wiser and safer curse, in order to avoid legal compI- , ations and unnecessary litigation, , would be to call a hearing before , ,dopting a 'harbor line. ,
 THOMAS M. PULLMAN, !
 'City Attorney"