Record   and   Guide.





Januaty 12,1895





boulevard, as laid down on the map, because he would thereby be
dedicating a strip 120 feet wide to public uses." In consequence of
this perfectly natural position of property-owners, real eatate busi¬
ness in tbe extensive district affected is retarded and the city is
deprived of the revenue which the improvements that a settlement
of this question will bring. It has been suggested that the city
might not feel disposed to undertake a work of this magnitude while
it has on its bauds the still greater one of creating a system of rapid
transit. The answer made to thia is that, as before stated, it is not
asked to do the work immediately, and could not do it until tbe nec¬
essary laud is obtained, a proceeding whose period cannot be fixed
with any kind of definiteness; tbat when really undertaken tbe work
will not be done all at once, but in convenient portions, spreading
the total expenditure over a considerable time, Tbe suggestion of
rapid transit also bringa up an argument which should have weight
in detei-mining the best time to .acquire the land, and thatistbatif the
system of rjipid transit is extended through the 23d aud 24th Wards
before this land is condemned the cost to the city of tbe land will be
very much greater than now, how much greater it is, of course, impos¬
sible to say. but a moment's consideration will show that it is suf¬
ficient to have a very important bearing on this question.

Incidentally, it may be stated that a misapprehension exists in the
miuds of some property-owners as to their rights iu the interval of
filing maps and tbe condemnation of property by the city. This is
due to tbe acceptance of the law as laid down in tbo Consolidation
and the Annexation Acts, without reference to anyrevision that may
have been made by the Court of Appeals. Both these acts provide
that any person improving within the lines of auy proposed streets
shall not be compensated for his improvementa. But this provision
was declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals, in the case of
Forster vs. Scott, which has such an important bearing on the ques¬
tion of the rights of owners of property mapped for improvement,
that it is worth stating. The facts are that the plaiutiii', Mr. Fred¬
erick P. Forster, contracted to sell a lot in tbe 23d Ward. Tbe
defendant rejected title on tbe ground tbat a proposed street was
mapped to take that lot, and set up the provision of the Consolida¬
tion Act previously referred to. Action was brought to '
compel the performance of tbe contract and was nlti-_
mately taken to tbe Court of Appeals. The appellant,
Forster, claiming that whenever a law deprives the
owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his property,
or imposes restraints upou such use and enjoyment that materially
affect its value without Icg.al process or compenaation, it deprives
him of his property within the meaning of the constitution, and
although the police and other powers of government may sometimes
incidentally affect property rights, those powers can only be exer¬
cised to promote the public good, and alway-e eubject to judicial
scrutiny, and that the provision of the New York consolidation act
which declares that no compeusation shall be allowed to the owners
of land taken for a street, for any building erected or placed thereon
after tbe filing of a map of the street, hy its terms imposes a restric¬
tion upon the use of the land which amounts to au incum¬
brance, and is so unconstitutional. This claim waa sus¬
tained by tbe Court of Appeals. The removal of this
restriction on tbe use of the property by the owner raises a
danger which the city ought to consider, namely, the speculative
building on property within tbe lines of proposed streets for the pur¬
pose of obtaining compensation or a market in tbe city itself. People
who, however, have bought lots on which to bnild homes and are
superior to such a trick will feel deterred from acting, and so far as
they are concerned the provision of the Consolidation Act is practi¬
cally of full force and efiect, notwithstanding the decision of the
Court of Appeals

Mr, James L. Wells, whose interest in everything relating to the
development of the 23d and 24th Wards is well known, speaking of
thismatter. said; "lumyopiniouit ia a serious detriment to tbe whole
district now that the map is filed that the city does not go on and
acquire the land. The land can be acquired much more reasonably
now than will be possible at any other time. If the laud is not
acquired, but the map simply filed and the matter left in its
present shape, it will iudetiuitely delay and prevent improvement
along the proposed lino of the concourse. It will keep a very large
amount of property ont of the market which might otherwise be
sold and buildings erected thereon, and iu that way help to bear its
share of tbe city's burdens. Ii is not a question of the desirability
of making the improvement. That does not come into consideration
just now. It is whether it is proper economy now to appoint a
commission to acquire the laud. I say it is, because that commission
could not come to a conclusion inside of a year, let it work as hard .as
it may have a mind to. The city is uot asked to conatrnct the boule¬
vard now, that will corae up later, and in auy case the work will not
all be done at oue time. Nor can the question of cost be settled nntil
it is determined how much is to be borne by the city and how much
by the adjoining property. I veuture to say that the city has
not acquired any propei-ty iu tbe 23d and 24th Wards that has not
proved to be a good business investmeut; the best illustration of
this is tbe parks which cost $10,000,000 and are now worth
$30,000,000."

Judge Erneat Hall, one of the number of gentlemen who waited on
Mayor Gilroy, said: "I believe the only way tbe land in question
can be successfully treated aud brought into use with advantage to
the city, is by.carrying out this improvement. My only interest in
it is as a member of the North Side Board of Trade, I hold that as
the boulevard has been laid down on the map, condemnation of the
land ought to follow at as early a period as possible, so that prop¬
erty owners may know where they stand, and in order tbat tbe un¬
earned increment on the property inure to the beneiit of the city at
large."





Gen, E. L. Yiele, while indorsing the justice of 'this particular ap¬
plication, went much further aud bad considerable to say on the
general question of delay in carrying out improvements when once
tbey are decided upon by the city. Among other things he said:
"To get through all tbe details of the improvement of the street on
which I live (SSth street) took no less a space of time than eleven
years. So great is the time involved in disposing of preliminary
work that public improvements almost involve tbe death of the per¬
sons who originally start tbem. First, there is the legal opening, then
the regulating and grading; then the sewers, water aud paving follow,
one after tbe other; nothing can be done with one until the other is ;
put through. In one case a commission was appointed and, after
sitting two or three years, one of its members died and tbe whole
action had to be gone over again and a new commission appointed.
Where tbe cruelty to the property owner comes in is that all this
time his property ia paying taxes and interest, although it is in effect
reserved for pubfic uses. The system under which improvements are
made ought to be reformed so that these delays and injustices to
property owners shall be avoided."

Mr. W. W. Nilea, Jr., Aaaerablyman for the diatrict affected, was
also of opinion that the tying up of property for improvements
to be taken by the city at its leisure was a great injustice to the
property owner.





Property Owners' Insurance.

TUB VARIETY OP WAYS IN WHICH OWNERS OF HOUSES AND OTEER
BUILDINGS CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST LOSS.
Considering tbat insurance against business risks is a system of
venerable age if not of remote antiquity, and considering also the
way in which it has been elaborated in the present century, it would
be remarkable if it did not offer protection to the owner of real estate
iu a great many emergencies. A recent article in a London news¬
paper quotes a mediaeval historian lo show tbat there is ground for
believing tbat forms of assurance, or insurance let ns say to
ward off' fiippancy, existed iu England at the time of the
Conqueror. Soldiers of fortune made contracts, it is said, to avoid
aome of tbe worst consequences of their enterprises. It is alao said
that the Island of Minorca was, in 1755, inauredhy a foreign ambas¬
sador resident there against capture by tbe French. The eighteenth
century was probably tbe most speculative of any in history; in it
the rascal flourished aa he had never done before or since. The value
of tbe Western Hemisphere had just begun to dawn on the mind of
Europe and among tbe consequences were the South Sea and Missisr
sippi bubbles. In the rage for speculation then created insurance
took a prominent place, the most absurd riska being offered and
taken. Of course a great deal of swindling aud disaster were the
results, but out of tbe chaos which followed arose the orderly and
magnificent system which uow deserves the title of the business
man's providence.

As tbe purpose of this article is limited to showing the insurance
privileges available to tbe owner of real estate ;to-day, nothing need
be said of the extent of this system geuerally or bow it follows almost
every enterprise over the face of the globe. At tirst thought it may
appear absurd to say anything at all on the subject, it seems so
natural to infer tbat every property-owner knows all about it. It
was only on talking with one of the largest managers of estates in
New York City that it was found tbat there was instead of universal
knowledge aremarkable ignorance;among owners of the risks relat¬
ing to real estate that tbe several insurance companies are prepared to
take. He owned himself not to know of several suggested to him.
This alone was sufficient justification for what is stated here, but as
he added the statement tbat one of them, the insurance of rents, was
not as general as it ought to be because owners were not aware of it,
it became a pleasant duty to inform them all, even if some coal should
go to Newcastle so that tbe places which arel not the depots of such
carboniferous deposits should also be served. Those who know all
about it will doubtless excuse what appears to them to he of chest-
nntty character when they comprehend that all are not so well
informed as themselves.

In the first place, as everyone knows, a building may be insured
against tire and water as may .also be itr, contents, whether fittings,
furniture or stock iu trade. Tbe insnrauee of reuts, under what is
termed the use and occupancy policy, is not so well knowi, as before
stated. This policy provides tbat in ca.se of the destruction of a
building by fire the insurer will pay, dnring the period elapsing
between that catastropheiand the rebuilding, the rents which might
have been expected to be received during that period had no fire .
occurred. The premium ia a small one, something like tbat of the '
tire risk itself. The benefits have of course to be based upon pre¬
vious actual results and an agreed reasonable limit of time
within which the building can bo replaced. Payments are ouly
made for the actual time that the owner is deprived of the
use and occupancy of tbe building. This protection is generally
secured by people who depend on the income of property for their
living expenses and is an admirable'way, should afire occur, of bridging
over the period occupied in adjusting fire claims and in rebuilding.
A similar policy to the preceding is oue insuring lessee's profits in
tbe event of the same emergency, viz., fire. An operator leasing a
building for improvement aud re-letting or re-letting without
improvement, as tbe case may be, can insure the profits he may
reasonably expect to receive on thislea.se. S.ay bis rental is $4,000
a year and the iucome of tbe building is $0,000, tbe insurance com-
p.any will underwrite tbe difference under certain terms and condi¬
tions which tbey specify.

Owners of all classes of buildings are liable for. injury to life and
limb due to causes for which they are responsible on the assumption
that their property is safe to use.   For tnatancej injuries incurred in