Evening Star Newspaper, April 24, 1896, Page 9

S PURE "DUFF NO FUSEL OIL Gives health and strength, builds ap Ask your grocer or druggixt for it and take nothing elise. Pam- phiet sent by DUFFY MALT WHISKEY Co., Rochester, N. ¥. 4UGGLERS. European Visitors Make It Interent- of the strictest government has agents acro: ounts of unusual pu turning tourists fals In this coun The officials of the st nto service, chases by home-re’ ner are also often both for the informa- irtues of their eyes. ago the stewardes through the n discovering to give up in de- I that the sieward- n one of the men, ver’s steamer and detected a faint In a moment the inspector d the rug was ripp: ide was neat! Was mistaken, rn home to his t from abroad. clever method extensively prac- obliged to ret heme of a western wom shed to import the matter, rs commonly A lady who mov Then, after ed the ignorant owner by her liberality in ostly hair, on f ornaments, filled with pins. toms, and th © were amber her bonnet Her trunks had two space between was well filled be not so sharp witted, ve been known to do some One progre Try west of the ht two dogs very nearly From one he ik and body, the ed the latter and ly tied the shaggy coat about the astonished live dog, being careful, howe: yards of valuable a wheel, purchased in Eng al use, of course, with a land for his p be firm in one p so the ruse and bland Chinamen, who d at San Francisco, cunning- ly, and for a while successfully, fooled the It was at a time when crude opium was $4 per pound. were numerous, lar style of high-backed chair, which represented to be an i officials were long from the cheap rate at w lace and hol- and so was a eirloom, alm but they were v with high-backed Chinese hefrlooms. bare one day, when his trunk came ith one of the and then a disma from without the and seat of his chair eight: opium rolled. Bland smiles and high-backed chairs con- tinued to arrive for a while, but the sad IF ‘ached the confiding children After that the . but the high-backs and the opium aforesaid remained at home. yed China- hollow rungs YY pounds of bland smiles « A MONTANA RDMINISCENCE. The New-Fledsed Banker Threw Up nds for the First Customer. lawyers of Bil- has been spinning early-t stories to the Gazette, among them being the following: “In the year 1882 H. H. Mund came in from Deadwood to s though he hadn't been out west long, and had a very respect for six-shooters and s of a ike nature w: were worn as ornaments by almost every: He had some exper- considerable ether tmplem would become very nties afforded much amusement to those who zatkered to look on. and for othe conservative a ns he had hn avoided mingling in any he building in which the bank was to be ated was a frame, and was not finished whey Mund and the safe arrived; so. the , Hart & Frieze as Mund had been in these days when a a hardwafe stcre. but a few T over one ooters in his tent, and, im a gruff voi as the man wan Westerner approached. Are you the new banker?” sir; anything I can do for you?" peckets, and, in an instant, up went Mund’s his face became as pale death, while his knees knocked together and became so weak that he could not take “A broad smile spread over the face of | Tom McGir!, the cattle baron, six-shooter, drew -out $= as—instezd as Mund expected—he in bills for deposit and ked, in his gruff, business-like wa: “Are you ready to do a little business?” rh over, and Mund’s pulse soon began to beat regularly again.” Changeable Sara. Harper's Bazar. a ead in an old paper the other day that Sara Bernhardt was born in 1644.” “How old was the paper?” “Oh, it was published in 1886. I have a bound file.” “I thought so. We've had later news he was born in 64 now.” since then; STREET EXTENSIONS Court of Appeals Sustains the High- way Ach NORIGHT HOWEVER 70 ASSESS BENEFITS An Opinion From Parts of Which the Chief Justice Dissented. TEXT OF THE DECISION ———— The decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of Judge Cox, who held the highway extension to be uncon- stitutional, rendered yesterday afternoon, as exclusively reported in The Star, is gen- erally regarded as a victory both for the District and for the land owners. The ef- fect of yesterday's action of*the appellate court is to sustain the validity of the act in pert, while at the same ¢ime declaring that its provisions respecting the assess- ment of both special and general benefits are invalid and inoperative. Such, at least, understood to be the opinion of counsel for the District. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court is open to both sides, but whether or not either side appeals has rot yet been definitely determined, and will ot be, it is said, until after counsel have had an opportunity to more carefully con- sider the effect of the action of the Court of Appeals. much is, however, certa Thi —if the land owners appeal, the District Will also note an appeal, that every ques- tion raised by either side in the case may be considered and passed upor by the Su- preme Court. ‘The Majority Opinion. ‘The majority opinion of the court, writ- ten by Mr. Justice Shepard, reviewed in de- tail the previsions of the act of March 2, iss, under which the proceedings were brought. ‘The sections of special impor- tance in the consideration of this case, the opinion says, are 11 and 15, which read as totes: Section 11. That where the use of a part of any parcel or tract of land shall be condemned in such a proceeding, the jury in ssessing the damages therefor shall take into consideration the benefit the purpose for which it is taken may be to the owner or owners of such tract or parcel by enhancing the value of the remainder of the ud shall give their verdict according! and the court may require in such case that the damages and the benefits shall be fou and ted separately. ction That the amount awarded y said court as damages for each . high- Way oF reservation, or part thereof, con- derored and established under this act, ne-half assessed against the land nefited thereby and the other half shall he charged up to the revenues of the Dis- t of Columbia; that one-half of the emount awarded by said court as dam: reach highway or reservation or part thereef, condemned and established under this act, shall be charged upon the lands ke ed by the laying out and opening uf h highway or reservation or part ther nder of said amount shail harged to the revenues of the District of Columbia. The same jury which shall assess the damages caused by the opening of any highways or reservation or part mment of an isting highway or part thereof, shall ascc tain and determine what property is there benefited, and shall assess against each ‘| which it shall find to be so benefited er proportional part of the whole of half of the damages: Provided, ‘That in making such assessment for bene- fts the jury shall, as to any tract a part of which s « been taken for such highway or reservation, or part thereof, nee for the amount, if any, been deducted from the value of the part taken on account of the benefit to the remainder of the tract. The proceedings of the court and the jury in making assessments for benefits under this Section shall,conform as nearly as is pra ticable to the foregoing provisions of this act relating to the assessment ef damage: and the verdict of the jury making an as sessment under this section as to any parcel of land shall not be conclusive until the same shall have been confirmed by the court. When confirmed by the court the assessment so made shall be a lien upon the land assessed, and shall be collected as special improvement taxes in the District of Columbia have been collected since Meb- tuary 21, 1571, and shall be payable in five equal annual instaliments, with Interest at the rate of 4 per centum per annum from the date of the confirmation of the asse ment by the court. That no expense for the improvement of any street, circle, res- ervation or avenue laid out under the pro- visions of this act, outside the cities of Washington and Georgetown, shall be chargeable to the treasury of the United States, but such expense shall be paid solely out of the revenues of the District of Co- Tumba.” “The prece fon then con . “covers what is known as Denison and Leighton’s subdivision of a part of Mount Pleasant and Pleasant Plains. A jury was empaneled and returned a verdict in which they describe each lot, giving its area in square feet, the num- her of square feet taken for public use and the value thereof, the value of build- ings, ete., the damages, where any, to the | remaining land, the benefits, where any, to the same and concluding with the ass?ss- ment ef damages made in each case, less benefits. Upon motions for new trial, in arrest, ete., based upon the unconstitutionality of the law, the learned justice before whom the proceedings was had, after delivering an able and comprehensive opinion giving par the opin- the reasons for his conclusion, declared the whole act void; set aside the verdict and dismissed the petition. “From that judgment the appeal has been prosecuted. “I. The first question for decision arlses under the eleventh section of the act, which provides the manner of the assess- ment of damages where a part only of the owner's tract shali be taken. The jury are therein directed, In assessing the damages for the part taken, to consider also the benefit that ‘the purpose for which it Is taken’ may be to the owner by enhancing the value of the remainder. Benefits and Damage: “In the recent cas+ of Md. and W. R.R. Co, vs. Hiller, 24 W.L.R. 219, which was a cese of the condemnation of land for the use of a private corporation, we were cem- | pelled to give interpretation to the last clause of the fifth emendment: ‘Nor ‘shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” And the ma- jerity of the court were of the opinion that this ‘just compensation’ means the actual value of the property taken, payable in money and without diminution on account of benefits, general or special. “In respect, however, of a claim for dam- ages done to the adjacent land, not actual- ly taken, special benefits are to be copsid- ered. The same rule must necessarily apply where the appropriation is for the use of government. There is no ground for a distinction, However, tt must be admitted, pointed out fa the case before referred to, that there is, in some material respec a difference between the effect of condem jon of land for a railroad and for a pub- in lic highway or stre the former the j vse of the taker Is practically exclusive, while in the latter case the owner, as one of the public, has the enjoyment of all the uses of the thoroughfare and has, besides, a special easement, or property, therein, for the subsequent’ deprivation of which, under certain circumstances, he may also be entitled to compensation. Whatever weight these considerations may be entitled | to, they were not provided for in the fifth amendment as they have been in some of the later state constitutions; and while Congress may liberalize or extend the ben- efits of special compensation to the land owner, it cannot restrict the operation of the words of the Constitution intended for his_ protection. “The difference between the effect of taking for a quasi-public and a distinctive- ly public use, we venture to suggest, ac- ccunts for the doctrine of some of the de- c:sions wherein, as it seems to us, the ex- ercise of the sovereign power of taxation, that may include the assessment of spe- cial benefits to pey, or assist m paying, for streets and tkeir improvement when taken, has been confounded with the sep- arate and distinct right of eminent do- main. “Both these pcwers are sought to be ex- | be separately ma THE EVENING STAR, FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1896-FOURTEEN PAGES, ercised in the statutes under consideration. Secticn 15, which provides for the assess- aaent of part of the cost of the land upon the property in the neighborhood receiving benefits from the opening of the street, or streets, will be matter of special consider- ation later. Section 11. “Section 11, which regulates the condem- nation, provides that the value of the part taken from an owner may be reduced by the terefits which may accrue to his remain- ing land. Where these benefits are found to equal or to exceed the value of the part taken, there Is nothing left for which to assess the neighboring lands, under section 15. The whole burden falls upon the oue land owner, notwithstanding the lands of others may recelve benefits of: the same kind to an equal or less extent. If the com- pensation or ‘damages,’ as we think it is misnamed In the act, exceed the benefits, then the owner may be further assessed In Proportion, with others, to make up the amount thereof, under the provisions of section 15. It is true that by special pro- y.sion of that section the jury Is required to make ‘due allowance for the amount, if any, which shall have been deducted from the value of the part taken on account of the benefit to the remainder of the tract.’ Exactiy what this ‘due allowance’ may mean is unimportant. In its broadest appli- cation it is eminently just, but it is given as an act of grace, and is not the compul- sery recognition of a right. If the power to consider these benefits exists in the award of just compensation in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, it is de- pendent upon nothing else. “Payment of the surplus may be made from the public revenues, or in part from a fund provided by special assessments upon all neighboring lands that are benefit- ed by the improvement, in the discretion of Congress. This power of special assess- ment may be made to operate concurrently with the other, or it may follow, or be called into existence by a later independent act; and in case of its exercise there would seem to be no way in which, save by legislative favor, the owner could secure exemption from double assessment. , Granting the power to assess the cost of the improvement against lands ben- efitet thereby, then, if the provision re- quiring credit to the owner of the land taken for benefits assessed against him un- der section 11 had been omitted therefrom, it could hardly be rendered invalid thereby, , “The plea of double assessment would be met with the answer that the first one Was made, not as an assessment of a tax, but under the separate and distinct pro: vision of the fifth amendment, mesulating Compensstion: for lands taken for public Se. “Had the power to assess and set off benefits been excluded from section il, or had section 15 been amalgamated there- with and the owner of the land taken inerely included with other neighboring land owners in an assessment, in propor- tion to benefits, for the purpose of raising a fund to aid in paying the cost of the im- provement, the foregoing objection might probably have been obviated; because, hilst the two proceedings would be had together, the assessment and payment of compensation, on the one hand, and the assessment of the cost of the public im- provement, on the other, would have been Separate and distinct operations, “Referring to the case of Md. and W. R. R. Co. v. Hiller, supra, where the reasons for the interpretation given the language of the fifth amendment limiting the exer- cise of the right of eminent domain are set forth, our conclusion is that so much, at least, of section 11 as provides for the diminution of the just compensation for the value of the land taken, to the extent of benefits accruing to the remainder, is beyond the power of Congress, and there- Tore void. A Part May Stand. “It does not follow, however, that the whole section shall be declared void and stricken from the bill because of the at- tempt to exercise a power that Congress does not possess; for, as if in recognition of a doubt as to its possession of such power, it is further provided that the Sevsments of Value and of benefits, should de and returned’ by the Jury. Although the word ‘may’ is used in that provision, and not must or shall, we think the context authorizes it to be re- warded as imperative rather than per- missive only. “In Md. & W. R. R. Co. agt. Hiller supra the trial court, without any direction upon the point in the law, required the jury to make @ separate as nent; and upon return of the verciet, tgnored the assess- ment of benefits and entered judgment for the value as found; and that judgment We affirmed. We see no reason, therefore, why the remainder of the section may not stand, with the whole provision as to be fits stricken out. It is plainly severaile therefrom. Huntington agt. Worthen, 120 S...97, 102, twithstanding the criticism con- tained in the opinion of the majority of the court in the recent case of Craighill agt. Van Riswick (24 W. L. R., 177), of the doctrine that special assessments, for bene- fits rece may be made in aid of pub- lic improvements, it was conceded that it had been established by the great weight of judicial decision In this country, as well as recognized to exist by the Supreme Court of tke United States. n that case, too, a marked difference referred to as existing between assess- ments for the creation of public pleasure grcunds and for the improvement of streets, building sewers, etc. As was sald by Mr. Justice Morris: ‘The theory has its limitations and restrictions as has the power of general taxation; and we think that it will be fcund, upon a closer an- alysis of the authorities, at all events, of the best authorities upon the subject, that the theory has been applled only ‘when some easement or appurtenance has been added to the lands of the person assessed, or when some advantage has heen given him which he did rot possess before, such, generally, as the improvement of a stre for access to his property or the con- struction of a sewer for the drainage of his land, or some similar work which he could, and should, have done for hiinself, if it were not that such work by a private individual for obvious reasons would be impracticable.’ “Some of tffose special easements and rights of property in the streets, Involved in this proceeding, have been mentioned heretofore. Section 15. n so far as the general principle of the assessment, established by section 15 of this act is concerned, there can be no sub- stantial objection. “It is fair, liberal and regular. One-half only of the cost, and that payable in five annual installments, is to be assessed against the property found to be benefited by the improvement, in proportion to the benefits by each tract received. The bene- fits are not apportioned by an arbitrary rule of frontage, area or neighborhood; but are to be ascertained by a jury under the direction and supervision of a competent court with the same right of appeal as in other cases. “Any mode of arriving at the assessment of benefits, however, must to a certain ex- tent be arbitrary, uncertain and unequal in operation; but these difficulties are in- herent, and though furnishing strong rea- sons against the adoption of any such sys- tem of taxation, have not as yet been per- mitted to stand in its way. “The difficulty with section 15, in these respects, is not in the general principle of the assessment, but in giving it certain and effective operation in connection with dther provisions of the act. For this reason, chiefly, the learned justice who tried the case set aside the verdict and declared the law inoperative and vold. As was said in his opinion: ‘If we suppose a_ spacious avenue to be run through a half dozen sub- divisions from the boundary of the city to the boundary of the District, it is evident that the part of the avenue nearest the vity is just as certainly, though perhaps not in the same degree, beneficial to the most re- mote as to the nearest subdivision, because it is equally essential to it and forms a part of its means of convenient access to the city; and the benefit of such a highway is not confined to the ground immediately abutting upon it, but extends laterally to all the property to which ft adds a conven- ient access to the city. In fact, it diffuses itself in every direction until it imper- ceptibly disappears like the ripples in a stream caused by a stone thrown into it; but if a jury are to assess all the property so benefited they must first know the whole amount of damages to be awarded for all the property taken for the supposed high- way, in order that a single asessment for benefits may be made. In order to do this it would be neceasary for the same jury to assess the damages in all the subdivisions affected by the highway in question, and for all assessments to be suspended until this work is completed.” “The act does not. contemplate the im- mediate opening up of all the streets pro- vided for in the map, but that it shall be done first in the old subdivisions separate- ly and then in the outlyirg portions, from time to time. Section 6 se2ms to contem- plate an immediate but separate proceed- ing to condemn, against the property in each of the subdivisions, and that course has been pursued by the Commissioners. Section 7, on the other hand, defers the condemnation of streets and’ averues in other portions of the, District contained in the map, and outside’ of existing subdivis- 8, until such tine as, in then judgment, public convenience require, and this exercise of discretion, !s made subject to review by the court.sThese requirements seem to have been ignored in section 15, which geems to contemplate an award of benefits an all lands"enetited by opening vp any perticular highway. ‘So, as said by Mr. Justice Cox: ‘If tie jury were to con- sider what property..outside of the sub- Givision would be benefited »y so much of the new highway as fles within that sub- division and assess it, accordingly another jury in passing upon. an adjacent subdivis- ion might in return assess benefits anew upon the lots in this #ahdivision, and thus the assessment of vent juries might overlap and be doubled upon the unfor- tunate lot holder.’ “In the same way assessments might be further made to overlap in the later open- ing of a street to the District boundary. “The other sections of the act show that Congress regarded li as unwise to open a street to the District line sooner than the public convenience shall demand; whereas, it was considered important to at once rectify the existing subdivisions and conform them to the general plan. These were partly built upon and would probably be further incumbered by im- provements with a probable rapid increase of values and consequential damages to be compensated for. Why It 1s Inoperative, “In our opinion, section 15 is inoperative by failure to conform to the necessary operation of sections 6 and 7. To accom- plish the object of speedy condemnation and rectification of streets in localities where important, some provision should have been made for the creation of definite taxing districts, including one or several subdivisions and sections adjacent, where it might appear to be expedient and just, #0 that the work of condemnation, laying off and assessment of expenses of streets could take place promptly without com- plication with others. “Another defect is that the asscssments, when contirmed by the court, shall bear In_ terest from date of such contirmation, not- withstanding the fact that Congress’ may not accept them, if at all, for a year, pos- sibly, under the provisions of section 18. “3. That Congress has made no appropria- tion for the immediate payment of the com- bensation that may be assessed does not render the act invalid. “That it had the right to authorize the Commissioners to withdraw, after Judg- ment rendered in a similar proceeding, where the money had been appropriated in advance, has been decided. Ross agt. U. 8. in rel. Prospect Hill cemetery, 24 W. L. R., “Here no appropriation is made, but it ts declared that in case it is not made ‘with- in the period of six months, Congress be- ing In session for that time after such award, or for the period of six months af- ter the meeting of the next session of Con- gress, the proceeding shall be void, and the land shall revert to the owner.’ “The last words are meaningless, for the litle cannot pass out of the owner until payment made or security provided for. Sweet agt. Rechel, 159 U. 8. 380, 401, 404, Besides, the first clause of the section pro- hibits the posseesion of the Commissioners for the District, until the appropriation shall have been made and the money actu- ally paid. “It ls a serious inconvenience, and may, in some instances, result in injury to the private owner, that he may have to remain in suspense awaiting the appropriation by Congress; but this is an Incident of the ex. ercise of the power fhagi cannot be wholly avolded, and against which there is no remedy, provided it- benot prolonged for an onabi d. (Shoemaker v. U. S8., 47 UL 8, ) ‘ ‘i ‘The same practi¢al injury may follow the Institution of proceedings by a private corporation as the resui#/of protracted litt gation; though, in ‘such case, the land owner would probally Wave a right of ac- ton for actual damages against the cc Poration in the event of its withdrawal therefrom. Does Not Nallify the Whole Act. “4. The ext proposition urged in support of the judgment 1s that if the invalidity either of sections M1 atid 15, or both, be established, the act, as a whole, becomes inoperative, and must!therefore be de- clared void. % 2 “We cannot agree te this contention, The céntrolling object*of the act evidently is to provide a uniform plan for the ex- tension of the s avenues of the elty of Washington throughout the Dis- trict of Columbia, and to rectify all exi ing subdivisions and bring them into con- formity therewith. (Ross v. Goodfellow, 23 W. LL. R., 3% “Even if the whole of sec declared void, the general object of the act would not be impaired. Theugh important to the public interest in giving immediate effect to the operation of the act in the ex- isting subdivisions, it might have been omitted, along with its attendant provis- jons, without detriment to the general ob- Ject to be accomplished, “What has been said of section 11 ap- plies with greater reason to seciion 15, which has been declared invalid. That sec- tion might well have been omitted alto- gether. It 1s but one of the motes in which the property condemned may be in part paid for. If, in fact, the policy of as- sessing benefits in order to pay for the opening of streets is to he generally pur- sued, it would be more nearly just, as well as conducive to certainty of ascertainment, if the assessment should be made to fol low upon the actual condemnation and opening of the street through a definite territory. “It is only when different clauses of an act are so dependent upon each other that it Is evident the legislature would not have enacted one of them without the other—as when the two things provided are neces- sary parts of one system—that the whole act will fall with the invalidity of one clause. When there is no such connection and dependency, the act will stand, though different parts of it are rejected.” (Hun- tington v. Worthen, 12) U. S., p. 102; Pack- et Co. v. Keokuk, $5 U. S., 80, 89; Poindex- ter v..Greenhorn, 114 U. an Vv. Farmers’ L. and T. Co., 154 U. &., 395.) Public. Necessity Private Con- venience. “S—The next and last objection taken to the act as a whole is that the record of the maps provided for therein amounts to a teking of the land in the sense that it inter- feres with the enjoyment thereof by the cwners, to an injurious extent beyond the power of Congress without a provision for cempensation. This question, though not decided, was to some extent considered in Ross vs. Goodfellow supra, where some of the probable inconveniences of the act were alluded to. , “fhat the act is not an unauthorized encroachment upon the rights of the land owners is, we think, settled by the prin- ciples enounced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following cases: Shoemaker vs. U.S. 147, U.S. 282, 231, Pros- ser vs. North, Pac. R.R. 152, U.S. 59, 3 “Similar statutes are quite common throughout the states of the Union, and haye generally, if not universally, been up- held as valid exercises of legislative power. “District of city of Pittsburg, 2 W. & S. 220; Moale v. Baltimoye, 5 Md. 322;-Bteuart v. Baltimore, 7 Md.. 50% Foster -v. Scott, 136.N. ¥. 2 The question whethey the publi¢ neces- sity or interest intended fo be subserved by the act so far exceeds its inconveniences 10 the individuals as to justify its enactment was one for the determihation of Congress. “While we concur "(ify the learned trial justice in his refusal toventer judgment in accordance with the. verilict, we think that he went too far,in declaring the whole act inoperative and’ void, dismissing the peti- tion. The judgment therefore be re- versed. and the cause fmanded, with dl- rection to modify the judgment, in so far as it dismnisses theopeticion, and to rein- state the cause for #arther proceeding therein not inconsistent with this opinion. The costs incurred 6n ‘this appeal by the parties, respectively, wig} be pald by them. it Is so ordered.” © 2. 31 Chief Justice Alvey’s' Dissent. In his opinion, coneurring in part and dissenting In part from the majority opin- ion of the court, Mr. Chief Justice Alvey holds that whiie “the provision authoris- ing the assessments under the fifteenth section is entirely too indefinite and un- certain to furnish a reasonable und safe criterion for assessing the one-half of the award of damages against the property supposed to be benefited, this omission or defect in the act, however, does not ren- der invalid the entire act. The particu- jar provision is nugatory for the want of certainty, but all the other provisions of the act are valid, according to my epinion. The defect in the act can easily be re- moved by an amendatory ect of Con- gress.” Mr. Chief Justice Alvey, therefore, disa- grees with the court below (Judge Cox), who dismissed the case because, as he on 11 had been (Cox) held, the act fs unconstitutional and void. “This order,” the chief justice con- cludes, “in my opinion, should be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below, so that the verdict of the jury may be set aside, and that the appellants (the Commissioners of the District) be allowed to move for such other and further pro- ceedings as they may be advised to be proper.”” After referring to the fact that the grounds for Judge Cox's decision rest on sections 11 and 15 of the highway act, Mr. Chief Justice Alvey says: “There is cer- tainly no sufficient ground for contending that any of the other sections and pro- visions of the act are amenable to const!- tutional objection. The most that can bo urged against some of them {s-that they may give rise to difficulties in their prac- ucal application. But this grows out of the nature and peculiar circumstances of the subject matter of the act, and not out of any constitutional prohibition applicable to the case. The Disputed Sections. After qugjing those two sections, the chief justice says the first question is, What will constitute just compensation for private property taken for public use, to gratify the requirement of the fifth amendment to the Constitution? He holds that where part of land Is taken, benefits that may accrue to the remaining rt shall be taken into consideration and allowed in estimating the amount of just compensation for the part taken. That he not oniy thinks is fair and just, but fs certainly supported by the great preponderance of authority in this country. Judge Cox, he continues, conceded the e: istence of this general principle, “yet con- cluded that there was such difficulty in ascertaining the benefits with certainty and precision, and such uncertainty as to the time when such benefits would actually accrue to the remaining parts, that the pro- vision for such special benefits was null and void, and could not, therefore, be enforced. * * * But I do not think such construc- ticn ought to be adopied. Every reason- able intendment should he indulged in order to maintain the act in its entirety. * * * It is only when no other reasonable construction can be supported that an act of Congress, or any part of ft, can be de- clared to be unconstitutional and void, or invalid for any cause. Thinks Benefits May Be Axseaned. The chief justice agrees with counsel that it Is true that what will constitute just compensation for land taken is a ques- tion for the courts, and not for the legis- lature, to determine, but it is for the legis- lature to determine what private property may be needed, and when it shall be taken for public use, and he thinks after refer- ring to Judges Cooley and Dillon's works that it ts competent for Congress, in legis- lating for this District, to require benelits to remaining parts of’ land benefits there really be, to be estimated and considered in estimating the just com- pensation for the paris taken, as provided for in section 11 of the Iighway act. Public Necessity. Referring to the objection that the act makes no provision for the immediate opening and completion of the improve- ments—that is, that the benefits are Loo re- mote and uncertain to form an element in estimating the present value of the land taken—Mr. Chief Justic Alvey says the ob- jection does not seem to be weil founded yhen all the provisions of the si e ure ken into consideration, “In construing this statute,” he says, “we must bear in mind the great object and purpose in- tended to be accomplished—the extension of the present city limits so as to conform to the original plan of the city of Washing- ton as projected by President V ington and those intrusted with the adoption of a plan and the laying out of the natioaal city, a plan which contemplated the ulti- mate extension of the city to the limits of the cession, if that should be found neces- extension, accomplished short um he explains, cannot be Il at once, or within any bet must, in the nature e work, be done gradually as the pub Ss May require the im: ibis all land owners in the st be taken to have knowledge he plen of extension, he remarks, is intended to subserve a great public object, indee ity, and also to promote the private interests of property holders along the improvements. That some delay milence to adjoining proprietors mey occur are consequences that may reasonably be expected; but the extension should not, declares justice, be defoated be may suffer inconventerce or to suffer some consequential loss by improvement projected orgconstructed. is fair, he thinks, to presume that the im- provements will be made without unneces- sery delay. The rest of the chief justice's opinion relates to section 15 of the act, and con- clud:s 68 above mentioned. @ —_——__ S HAVE A REUNION. PYTHIS Sentiment Unanimous for a Temple in Washington. The first reunior of the Knights of Pyth- jas of the Washington domain was held last night at National Rifles’ Hail, and nearly 1,000 members of the fifteen lodges comprising the domain were in attendance. Past Chancellor J. A. Frank, es master of ceremonies, had prepared a vi pleasing program of exercises, which were opened with prayer by Rey. C. L. Pate of Union Lodge. Those who participated were Mr. T. L. Jones, Messrs. Taylor and Downini the ©, G. Conn Dram Corps, Mr. Milton Clark, Messrs. Longley and Woodward and Mr. J. B, Connor. At the conclusion of the program the con- sideration of the subject which was the real object of the reunion, and which is the erection in Washington of a grand Pythian tempie, was procecded with. Mr. Richard Goodhart, Mr. J. H. Cathell and others made powerful appeals for the new temple, and the general impression was that it would be soon provided for, —<_<__ On the Golf Links, The finals in the handicap foursome match of the Washington Golf Club were played on the links yesterday. H. A. Par- sons and Edward F. Riggs played off the finals with J. V. N. Philip and J. Henry Purdy, the former winning with four up and three to play. Each winner was pre- sented with a handsome solid silver loving cup. The medal play will begin turday at 10:30 o'clock, and the ladies’ match will begin after the races which are now in progress at Benning. Death of Miss Clara G. Quint. The many friends of Miss Clara G. Quint were much shocked and grieved to learn of her sudden death, which occurred Monday morning as the result of a surgicai opera- tion, from which she never rallied. Miss Quint was the eldest daughter of Rev. A. H. Quint of Boston, well known through- out the country in connection with his work for the Congregatiqnal Church, Her mother was in Washington at the time of her death, Funeral services were con- ducted by the Rev. Teunis Hamlin én Tues- day, April 21, 1806, at the home of Mrs. France, 1801 G street, and her body was taken to Dover, N. H., for interment. cane Junior Ball Clubs. The Young Defenders of East Washing- ton have defeated the Young Strikers by 8 to 7. The former club comprises J. Dwyer, H. Wheeler, T. Phillips, J. Grant, S. Handy, W. Dean, J. Mohvn, A, Cox and W. Rull- man. Address T. Phillips, 1126 4th street southeast. The Young Panoramas would like to hear from teams whose members are under six- teen years of age, especially the Bright- wcod Pase Ball Club. Address F. Gardner, 309 14th street northwest. The Young Atlantas have defeated the Young Districts by 7 to 5. The Young At- lantas would like to hear from all teams whose players are under fourteen years of age. Address T. Sicler, 329 C street south- west. The players are as follows: M. S. Isham, A. Sullivan and G. Hammer, T. Cranston, J. Fredrich, McLimm, Sacker- man, J. Wright, A. Rollins and'L. Bern- himer. There will be a game of base ball tomor- row between the Second Washington and the Bright Star base ball clubs. The bat- teries are as follows: Second Washingtons, Hughes and Johnson; Bright Stars, Miller end Gensler. Challenges wanted from clubs under twelve. Address 1316 Vermont ave- nue northwest. et The Fish a Little Shy. From the Harlem Life. Brown (to Jones, who has just returned from a week's fishing excursion)—“Did you have pretty good luck, Jones?” Jones (with disgusi)—“Gcod luck? I had an ace full beat twice.” of ause some persons even be made it WHAT SHALL BABY BE? ese His Parente Must Decide For Him They Are Responsible. Long before a .baby comes into the world his Life problem begins. The laws of ineredity are inflexible. ‘The sins of the fathers," their vices, thelr virtves, thelr weaknesses, their strensth in all the by-gone generations, find a focus in the Nttle helpless tender morsel of flesh we call a baby. He may draw characteristics from great grand- parents, h2 may resemble “papa’” a very great deal, but the chief influence on his little fe is due to his mother. Upon her bodily condition for the year before and following his Wirth, more depreds than upon anything else, or all else put together. Under ordinarily happy conditions the advent of a baby means the real birth of love In the house- hold. Cupid may take a nap when the heby vorite Preseription’ is a gcdsend to female society, and Dr. Pierce's Dleasant Pellets work mircies all who use them."" “I can traly say, writes Mrs. Minnie Smith, P. M., at Lowell, Lane county, Oregon, “that I owe my life to ‘Wonderful ‘Favorite’ Pres-rip- tien” I was going down in health very fast in the jast four years had miscerried twice, get so weak that I could mot staml on my f and seeing that Dr. Pierce's 1 Was @ sirengthenlag preventive, ty it. 1 took two bottles of th e Pre- scription’ and I have gone throngh and have the healthiest baty IT ever had; and I believe [I om Stronger than i have been ip twelve pears. Mrs. Jao. H. Jones of Veely, Lazerne county, Pa.,. writes: “I was induced to bay two bottles of your “Favorite Prescription” to see if the medicine would make thi vung of my baby more ow wish to state that I have bad seven efore, and all diced adoring birth, or sty but I am ha; to say that my eighth child ¢ ny. en Sanday, October 27, 18%) Is living, and I euffer d at all, compaced with what I had with the pan, anywhere, who fs tired of suferin ‘orlng or tired of Mfe, who will w Or. or to the World's Dispensary Medi 1 Association of Buffalo, N. ¥., of which be ts WH reeelve, (ree of Chiree, good, sound at will enable her to { case ix eu Wl without xamina- d dreaded treat painiessis, PERMANENTLY. and this, tor the trying ordeal of da in treated in whose n of a million reated dui experienc w that t incurable cases tn a hundred. Every Woman will be maithier and happier tar comes—his work will be amply attended to. But Uere is another side to the pleture, If the ner be sick and weak in a womanly way better than the one preceding ft. t to do the best she Knows how to make children healthier and stronger and bright rithan she was, A child is ge of health ts the Each mover ber “heir o iu ten are well not pn in ten have soi when they form of iu ope Lundred are per- rin a womanly way. A workman doesn't statue if his material is bad and bis tools biunt. A stock breeder doesn't expect to rilse thoroughbreds if bis o: inal stock is poor and weak and diseased. Why mid human bets worthy, Many a wouan ds and sits down tplessly to a life-time of misery aud suf wuently she does not go to a docte she knows thet Le will insist on an examiuat and most likely an abhorrent local treatment She suffers in silenee, growing worse and worse. She eve tioy even to bear the trials and bardeus of eve day life. It is not surprising {f these ehildre are sickly, peevish, fretful, cross and nervousiy wakeful. It is not surprising if they grow up into inferior and girls and mediocre men aud o. The *s health marks their whole and her hetith or iil-bealth rests wloily n herself. She can be thy If she really Wishes to be. Her troubles have bad the highest aT) oun ted on them, i is offerrd t at will give to her the px RV. doa ct Pierce, 3 jef_con- ical Insitute ox Buffalo, N. Y., diseovered bis now World fainous “Favorite Prescription” for the cure of all forms of nale "* and disease. ‘Thousands Over 90,000 cured by it, erate! W in writing over rived from its u day because Ul boss! It r ated for th feves pain Tr str: their heal It is very n. inflammation = the di + normal action. pid in its work, Lior, of dis man be rly dur and even t hiire period of its perils to both coming of baby painte i rs eystem for this tr shorten labor and the Bvery prospective mother should, therefore, com- nee early during the period of tify and preps system for the of delivery by the regular use of Dr. Piery vorite Prescription, Influence over that condition 2nd the tion of parturition which «xunot from any other medicine extant. ‘f to both mother and child is banish the pain and suffering confinement fs much mot 5 retfon of neurishment for the vied. ‘The wonder-working “Fa imparts health and strength to the wi tem and especially to the organs distinc nine. Not only for prospective mothers, nursing ones as well and for feeble won entation to fot func. erally, Dr. Pierco's Favorite Prescription $s the steatest enrthly. boon. ‘The only cine fore the public for wo- man's peculiar ailments, adapted ty ber anization by a regulary an experienced and slilled epectal dies ts Dr. Pte vorite Prescriptive not do burm in any condition of the system, sales exceed the combined sales of all iudicines for women, It will care ny fexinioe organism. It is absolutely certain. are gonis Who bays neglected thensel that a complete eure fs next to f even these will find com fu the use of the “Favorite Prescription.” cured hundreds of wemen relief whatever fi physicians. Easy-coing, over-worked as) well as ow 38 incompetent docsters often mal tals- takes and t thetr women patients for dyspepsia, Ufliousness, Htver, ki the tinctly fevsinin Prescription woitd p rep is absolute! inedicine. Such a rem ence. has ‘the: and no rei which Dr. Pic omptly cure. This wondert unique in the history er been. “Al good de y houest druggist will Be : get what you want and not some worth- jess, harmful imitat Mrs. AL J. Man avare county, N.Y Doctor Piere h of ges continemen of th it, jeht Center, Del- “{ berun tuking yorr eription during” the tion, and have tuken four bot ail duc to iy condt Favorite Preserip. Twas ons tn labor a ve ay physician seid I got along splendidly. it caved me a great deal of tuitering. I ha¢ Dright, elevan-pound boy. Berybody sa. a big boy for bis age.’ “He will be four big, this Thursday. I owe great thanks to God and to Pik ce's. Favorite Prescription and et ets. a My wife gave With to a child," writes S$. G. nd Bank, Oswego couaty, N.¥., her health was very poor use 5 Ple Pellets for years, and they are so good I thought I would try Dr. Pierce's Favorite Pre- seription for her. She took two bottles, a gnined flesh and strength. "The seco was enceinte she began to take the a few weeks befcre the birth of her child, and she had a very quick and easy confinement, and got from her bed strong ard healthy. L honestly th the ‘Favorite Prescription’ Is the very best med cine for women that Was ever put on the market Sho bas Just commerced taking Dr. Pierce Medical Discovery for after effects ef La Grippe.”" “A few years ago.” writes TC. Quesinberry, exq., of Mayberry Creek, Patrick county, Va., “iuy mother weighed only $8 pounds, and she was con- fined to her bed neatly all the ime. She was per- surded to use Dr. Pieree’s Favorite Prescription. and took three bottles, which cured her, and sbe te mow in good health and weighs 148 Ibs. The ‘1 strong, perfectly healthy and | suiting pbysiclan to the Invalids’ Hoiel and Sarg- have testitied signatures to the benctits de- pthers to- wvorite Prescription” tude it ost immiedi- sed parts and re- It should be is the faintest ort of this tryin em for the final ord easy and ff beth child and ription’? only known rourition of the period of continement as ing ordeal "8 Fa- whiecb exercises a salutary xin an abundant iy | but ¢ derangement of the distinctly with good and heart diseases when real seat of the trouble is in the create die favortio of ly exn be discoverod only ‘There is nothing in the world {ike It, ‘nor I did rot have one hour of ry short tine, und We ‘think fatherly vonnsat tot Ad. ical and UMBPE and tw of mailinu al Associath ¥ Used s6 dee 1 the 29003! man, son, & ° iGoing Out : ° ‘Of Business! —A genuine retiring sale— a closing out of a regular stock of high-class footwear. erybody knows or has heard of the superiority of Wilson’s Shoes—they're the Shoes to be sold. No bought- up goods. stonishing reductions have been made throughout the entire stock. A_ bargain opportunity equally advantageous for men, women and children, Lease and fixtures for sale. zAll $2.50 Shoes, $1.68. All $3.00 Shoes, $1.9 gAll $3-50 Shoes, $2.68. All $4.00 Shoes, $2.95. ¢All $4.50 Shoes, $3.19. pAul $5.00 Shoes, $3.85. 3All $6.00 Shoes, $4.15. {WILSON GLO O POV SI CCSS SEDO ETCH FO HS ) FROG TOF ESTE FG CFO SSFO0 OF 9 FOO 9684 6S 195 09OO9 OF 9090 00095000 ~~ w High-grade Shoes, front pleecs of best quality at the wing prices: $3.00 Switches for. | $4.00 Switches for. $6.00 Switchos for. i Gray Hair in same proportions. Til 11TH ST. Nest to Palais Late of 122 mh25-20d Me > AL ‘com. eeeee? mend and advertise thems os eee ee © Their general appearan aves eee eee 4 favorable tmpression upon even eceee © tie most casual observer, c 5 eeeee © anteed to it, look natural and = °°°%°%** be du-able. *Evans’ Dental Parlors, 1217 Penna. Ave. N. W. E_ apis-24d The Sweet Girl Graduate— —will soon be with us im all ber glory, AS a matter of fact, she will be showered With dowers. Lenve that port to us—we'll prepare a handsome floral p sure to pleas her, at sumll cost. floral de- vigns that’ leave our slore are the wand somest in the city A. Gude & Bro., "HIRES Rootbeer absorbs | all the goodness of nature’s most healthful herbs, roots, barks and berries. Made only by The Charles 5. Hires Co., Phi 4 dic. package maker § callous, Sold everywhere. oRISTS, FP STREET.