Evening journal., 1912-06-14
NO DECISION In THE
BOULEVARD CASE YET

not, or will not be. the Legislature
itself. Therefore the statute does
not delegate part OF the States
Sovereignty nor any of the attributes
of the General Assembly.
"It is respectfully submitted that
the consttutionality of the statute
should be sustained"
Mr.. Ridgely Concludes.
Mr.. Ridgely followed Mr.. Richards
and attacked the constitutionality Of
the law. His first point raised was
as to tho title of the act providing
for the creation and incorporation Of
boulevard corporations, his contention
being that the Act was in violation
of the State Constitution, in that the
title did not contain enough of the
subject matter of the Act as required
by the Constitution, which would
lead any person to believe that tho
Act only applied to companies formed
for the purpose Of constructing ave-
nues or streets around cities.
His second point, was that the Act
was in violation of the Constitution
prohibiting the taking Of private prop
erty except for pubic use. Public
use, he defined as meaning "use by
the public" that the public must have
certain definite rights.
He also referred to the 170-foot
strip of land as authorized by the Act,
to be withheld by q Boulevard Cor
poration from any use whatever for
so years, without taxation and for as
much longer thereafter with taxation
as the company should desire. He
asserted that this was not taking
for public USE
He next insisted that the Act was
in violation of two Constitutional pro-
visions, one providing that the Legis-
lature should pass no specal law con-
cerning the laying out or maintenance
of any street or highway. and the
other that corporations could only be
created under general law. He here
referred TO Mr.. duPonts communica-
ton and to the entries in the Legis-
lative journals, claiming that the In
tention was 10 pass special law COW
ering Mr.. duPOnt's offer. He insisted
that all men should be equal before
the law
Mr. Ridgely next argued that the
act was contrary to the spirit of the
Constitution because it delegated a
part of State sovereignty to q private
corporation. He said that the act left
the question as to additional state
roads, to board Of directors Of a pri-
vate corporation, who might decide
that the State should have a road
whether it wanted it OF not and that
the State was bound to maintain il
perpetually thereafter He said that II
the act were held general law, 4
would be possible 10 establish dozer
such roads.
: Mr. Ridgely in conclusion. pointel
, -Cut that the Act had never beer, pass
cd by the Legislature II the decision 0
4 the majority of the Court IN the vii
4 mington city election case known a
4 the Rash VS.. Allen case, should be sus
q tanned He said that tho defendant
! attorneys tried to distinguish the twi
cases but that the principle was tn
same in both. He said that he person
ally had not agreed with the decision
of the Court in the Rash-Allen case
q but that he thought that judicial con
1 sistency forbade a reversal of tha
q decision at this time when the Cour
was not sitting as a Court to correc
s errors and especially since the Legis
i lature had just passed Constitution
Il al amendment which would itsel
( change the law laid down in the Rash
n Allen case.
Il At the conclusion OF Mr. Ridgeley'
T argument the Court adjourned with
e out day, reserving the decision in tn
is case.