Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1909-09-16
EXCEPTIONS To
VIEWERS REPORT

ed by the trustees of the hospital for
the insane were argued before Judge
Evans in this city on Saturday The
argument occupied the greater part of
the day and embraced two very learn
ed and exhaustive addresses.
Court opened at 10 o'clock with
President Judge c. c. Evans and As
sociates Blec and Wclliver on the
bench. After some routine work Hon.
II. NJ. Hiucllley of counsel for Mrs.
Bennett opened the argument James
Scarlet and Ralph Kisner also rep
resenting the exceptions We're present.
Mr.. Hinckley explained that the
proce dings were instituted under the
act of May 6, 1891, which provides
that wlten board of trustees of any
State hospital for the insane shall de-
sire more land and shall be unable to
procure the same by purchase from the
owners it shall be lawful for said
board to enter upon and occupy ad-
Joining lands and for all damage done
or suffered or that shall accrue to the
owners of the land the State shall be
security and it shall be lawful for the
court of common pleas on application
thereto by petition to appoint jury
of viewers, etc.
In the case under argument as set
forth in these columns at the time,
viewers We're appointed and these duly
made their report. The exceptions fl
ed and taken up by Mr. Hinckley Sat
urday were as follows;
That the act of May 6, 1891, is un-
constitutional for the reason that it
violates Article /. Section 10 of the
constitution of Pennsylvania, which
provides that private property shall
not be taken or applied to public use
without authority of law and without
just compensation and that it violates
Article 3. 3.scction l6 of the constitution
of Pennsylvania, which provides that
no money shall be paid out Of the trca-
sury except on appropriations made by
law on a warrant drawn by proper
officer in pursuance thereof.
That it violates Article dissection
s of the constitution, which section is
as follows; Municipal and other corp
orations and individuals invested with
the privilege of taking private property
for public use shall make just com
pensation for property taken, injured
or destroyed, which compensation shall
be paid or secured before such taking.
injury or destruction.
In discussing the above exceptions
Mr.. Hinckley conceded the right of
eminent domain in the above case but
held that the right must be exercised
according to the constitutional provis-
ion. The constitution as quoted he
held prohibits the taking of private
without just compensation
being first made or secured Acticle
l6, section s prohibits the taking of
such property by any corporation in
vested with the right of eminent do
main without first paying said com
penSation or giving said security. Pay
ment must be made or secured before
the land is taken.
The land in the present case has al
ready been taken and Mr.. Hinckley
held that the act of May 6, 1891, makes
no adequate provision for payment or
security as the constitution requires.
1t will be conceded that no payment
has been made Mr.. Hinckley contend
ed that no security has been given.
The. ..act declares that the State shall
become security for full damage done
or suffered. Under one of the clauses
of the exceptions the question was
raised whether the State has power to
become security i'll II case like the
present. The claim was also made
that no security is provided such as
the constitution requires.
Assuming that these proceedings
were at an end and final Judgment en-
tered against the trustees of the State
hospital for the insane Mr.. Hinckley
asked how the money could be obtain
ed. The trustees are dependent on
appropriations from the State. The
act of 1891, provides that the State
shall be security but how can pay
ment be forced from the State? Article
., Section 4 of the constitution pro-
vides: No debt shall be created by
or ON behalf of the State except to
supply casual deficiencies in revenue.
repel invasion, suppress insurrection,
defend the States in war or to pay ex-
listing debt.
Mr.. Hinckley quoted extensively
from authorities to support his con
tcntion. There were five exceptions in
all but the above involving the ques-
tion of constitutionality will probably
prove of the greatest interest to the
public
Mr.. Hincl,ley occupied the morning
session with his argument. Hon.
Grant Herring followed in the after
noon. With what success he combat
ed Mr. Hinckley's argument will not
be known until the court renders an
opinion in the case.
Eye Injured.