DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - NEWSPAPERS - The Washington Post, January 21, 1896, pg. 2 ----¤¤¤---- This file is part of the DCGenWeb Archives Project: http://www.usgwarchives.net/dc/dcfiles.htm ********************************************* http://www.usgwarchives.net/dc/dcfiles.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm ********************************************* Contributed to The USGenWeb Archives Project by: Jamie M. Perez (jamiemac@flash.net) --------------------------------------------------- The Washington Post, January 21, 1896, pg. 2 HIGHWAY ACT UNDER FIRE Counsel for Property Owners Question Its Validity. The Fifth Article of the Constitution Quoted in Contravention of the Proceedings in the Denison and Leighton Subdivision Case. Justice Cox listened most of yesterday to arguments on the constitutionality of the highway act. There were a good many property owners and lawyers present. The arguments were made as especially applicable to the Denison and Leighton subdivision case, and Attorneys A. S. Worthington and Samuel Maddox, who had been specially engaged, represented the District, while Attorneys Nathaniel Wilson, William Birney, W. L. Cole, Chapin Brown, J. H. Lichliter, Arthur O’Connor, Donald McPherson, and others appeared for the owners. Mr. Birney opened the discussion with the explanation that his clients were not opposed to street extension if they were justly compensated for their property damaged or taken and not over assessed as to benefits. The valuation of the owners had been, in the instance he represented, from 75 cents to $1.25 per foot, yet the jury had brought in a verdict of 16 cents. The owners were actually brought into debt in regard to some of their lots because of the benefits assessed against them. Mr. Birney said the highway act made no provision for damages to land not taken, and compensation less benefits was clearly unconstitutional. The courts had always held that due compensation should be allowed. The proposed extension had already injured property, and measures should be taken against the act before more injury was done. Mr. Nathaniel Wilson intimated that the filing of the map of the approved plan of section 1 practically meant a taking of the land, because it prevented future subdivision and limited the control of the owners over it. The law was therefore in violation of the fifth article of the Constitution, which prohibited such a taking without compensation. The filing of the map was such a physical invasion as the Court of Appeals had in mind when it declared that the construction of an impassable barrier around land, by which the owner’s access to it would be destroyed, was a taking of it. The act was also unconstitutional because it provided for no just compensation for lands condemned. Mr. Wilson cited the decision of Justice Cox in the Rock Creek Park case, where the court held that 50 per cent of resultant benefits cannot be assessed against land. The court had instructed the jury that it must confine its assessment to the subdivision under consideration. Justice Cox suggested that perhaps he had erred in this ruling, and that he now thought the whole District should bear an assessment. Mr. Chapin Brown said that in the present case the jury did not include special benefits in the 50 per cent assessment, but in the Ingleside case they had. Mr. C. H. Armes challenged the District to prove its power to assess benefits provided in the street extension. Mr. Samuel Maddox supported the act, saying that in every State benefits are assessed against remaining lands, unless the laws expressly prevented it. The filing of the map was a preliminary requirement. It was necessary in order to ascertain the amount required before appropriating. Mr. Worthington said the District would not protest if the court ruled out the benefit assessments as excessive. But there must be no excessive prices for land. He had no doubt that Congress would decide that the government should bear one-half the expense. The filing of the map did not constitute a taking of the land. It might have been provided only for record. Congress was not compelled to improve any street. Congress might even enact that there should be no such improvement. One of the arguments against the law was that it was in the interests of the land syndicates, but, Mr. Worthington said, the land owners themselves were in court protesting against it. It must, therefore, be a good law. After further argument the hearing adjourned until Wednesday.