East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1864-04-27


on actual examination in each cas-
without being restricted to any give
method for asccrtaining them. Tn
discretion to be- exercised by the as
SCISSOR to apportion as the value of Der
efits is only less circumscribed tina
when the appoItionment is made o
the value Of property. In the al
sence of constitutional obstacles, til
power Of the Legislature is as ampl
and justified on the same. principle
authorize the leyying of taxes by til
exercise of the enlarged discretion q
by that which is more limited. .l.r
The case Of Woodbridge as. Dctroi
involved tho construction of q provis
ion of the Detroit Charter which dill
fors from that on which the other cas-
was decided in this, that instead @
requiring the expense to beapportion
ed among the owners in proportion b
the frontage of each, it required eacl
owner to pay for paving and grading
in front of his lot.
The Court was equally divided OF
the question whether that provision o
the charter was constitutional.
The members of the Court VIII,
supported the law held that the cas-
before them was not essentially differ
ant .f,.a,,, 4i.a o4ha- +hat .taxas for la
col improvements, generally called as
sessments, are not mentioned in tn,
Constitution; that the power of thu
Legislature to impose and collect then
like all other Legislative powers no
mentioned in the Constitution, is pie
nary and subject to Legislative discre
ton only that the apportionment o
the expense of such Improvement
may be made on tho basis Of valua.
ton or not, since the Legislature has
full power to prescribe the rule; thai
the mode cannot be made the test Of
the taxing power.
The member of the Court who
held the law unconstitutional did not
impugn the decision in Williams rs.
Detroit, nor were the objections OF
one of them applicable to the provis-
ions in question of tho East Saginaw
Charter. He concured with them
who sustained the law in holding that
the provisions of the Constitution,
(Sec. IL, II, Art. II, } that all assess
uIents shall be on property at its cash
value, and requiring tho Legislature
TO provide o uniform rate of taxation,
do not apply to these local assess
ments. He remarked further that
there being no other limitations in the
Constitution on the taxing power of
the legislature, it follows that if the
mode of raising the expense Of gra-
ding and paving provided by the Char
ter, can i'll any just sense be consider
ed tax or an assessment, or, If indie
pendent Of the Constitution, it could
be considered an exercise of the pow
or of taxation, it is free from all con-
objections. "Taxation" he
says, quoting from an authority ap-
proved by the Court, "operatcs upon
u community or upon class Of per-
sons in community, and by some rule
of apportionment." He held that the
Of the burden in tho man
ner complained of in that case was
not tho exercise of tho taxing power.
" 1t docs not, he says, "opcrate upon
BY any rule Of 81 SS PPoflio a.
nenf. There Is no apportionment
and nOthmg to be GPportioHed. The
amount required for the improvement
N part of lot is imposed as an en-
tJety upon such lot without reference
o the sum imposed upon any other
Of" Not being able to sustain the
aw as an exercise of tho power Of
AVIATION nor as the exercise of the po-
ice power, he denounced it as one for
aking private property for public use
Without compensation.
Hence a majority of the Court
anction and concede the power of
he Legislature as unrestrained by
my provision of the Constitution to
rovide for levying and collecting as
essments for local public improve
lents in any mode it may see fit to
dept, if. done in the exercise of the
overeign power of taxation. A ma
'rity also concurred in holding that !
he Legislature may delegate tho pow
+ to determine the limits of assess
tent districts, and that they need not |
9 made co-extensive with any civil
vision Of the State.
Though the assessment in question
expressly required to be apportion-
according to the benefits which the
orsons assessed are deemed to nc
hire from the improvement, yet this
AZURE of tho law does not detract
om the public character of the i'm
'ovement. 1t derives that character
ON its importance to the community
to a class of the community, and
at character is impressed upon it by
ing ordered by the Common Coun-
to promote the public convenience,
as bong required by the public ne
ssity. To order it was within the
culiar jurisdiction Of the Council.
nder this law the burden falls upon
ose on whom tho Legislature by
inc rule of apportionment had a
yht to impose it. Any rule which
yes to the burden imposed the char I
of a tax, is held by our ,
CHEST judicial tribunal to be within
Q competence of the Legislature to
escribe or to authorize local board
adopt. May not the relative bene- I
) derived by the individuals who to- |
Their constitute the community be I
opted as proper basis for appor- i
ming the cost of an improvement q
IN which those benefits proceed p G
is tho implied moral basis of all v
cs adopted for the equalization of {
bic burdens raised otherwise than i
a capitation tax. S
Sec opinion of Justice Christiancy, O
Woodbridge rs. Detroit: 81 hold b
II the Chorfar il constitutional !,