District of Columbia v. Brooke

Citations

• 214 U.S. 138
• 29 S. Ct. 560
• 53 L. Ed. 941
• 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1899

Syllabus

<p>Where no objection was made to a technical defect in the return which could have been rectified by amendment had attention seasonably been called thereto, a party who, as disclosed by the record, was not prejudiced, cannot raise the objection at a later date.</p> <p>Qumre, whether there is any distinction between “ a parcel ” and “ a letter’’.that renders defective a return showing service of statutory notice by mail.</p> <p>A property owner cannot urge against a statutory drainage system the non-existence of the necessity for drainage, or the fact that he had adopted a system of his own which is either sufficient or better than that required by the law. Such a contention would deny to Congress the right to create any drainage system for the District of Columbia.</p> <p>The mere existence of dwelling houses, whether occupied or not, indicates the necessity for drainage; and the owner is not deprived of his property without due process of law by a compulsory drainage act because the house happens to be unoccupied at'the time.</p> <p>The police power is one of the most essential of governmental powers, at times one of the most insistent, and always one of the least limit-able.</p> <p>A wide range of discretion is necessary to make legislation practical and the courts cannot be made a refuge from ill-advised, unjust or oppressive laws. ..</p> <p>Quaere, and not decided, whether there is any prohibition on Congress from enacting discriminatory legislation, and' whether, in the absenccv of any express prohibition to that effect any prohibition can be implied, especially in regard to the exercise of police power in the District of Columbia. See United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, as to power of Congress to enact discriminatory legislation under the commerce clause of the Constitution.</p> <p>If the power of Congress to enact discriminatory legislation as to the District of Columbia is limited either expressly or by implication, the prohibition cannot