East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1864-04-27
q he q onrier.
An important Decision.

"Wednesday. April. ~. 1873 A.

We publish below thu opinion o.
Judgo sathorlpnd in giving his de.
, cision in the case of certain parties
, fts. tho City of East Saginaw-whcrc-
, in the legality of certain special as
sessments is brought in question:
The paper is somewhat lengthy but
clear and concise, and we deem the
space it fillswell occupied as tho points
elucidated are of character which
possess peculiar local as well as gen
eral interest.
Charles IL. Smith and Cathariae IT. Jones.
The CITY Of East Sagiaa,e and Thompson
Tucker.
The Complainants seek to sustain
the injunction in this case to restrain
further proceedings to collect an as
sessment for improvements made on
Willard Street in the City of East
Saginaw, on two grounds First, That
the provisions of the charter under
which such assessment was made are
unconstitutional Second, That the
authorities not having followed the
has cRJaGGtfi5 5fi u R2SSiR TIE assessment
The feature of the charter objected
to as unconditional, is that purporting
to authorize the Common Council TO
determine that "the whole or any
part Of the expense of any public i'm
provement not requiring the taking of
any land by the city, shalfbe betrayed
by an assessment ON the owners or oc-
cupants of houses and lands to be ben
Gifted thereby" (Sec. 81, Art. Wiz
and other provisions directing how the
assessment shall be made OH this prin-
ciple and collected.
The objection is that in these provi-
sions no uniform rule of taxation is
furnished based ona cash valuation
OF property; that they purport to
give to the Common Council discre-
tionary power TO apportion the ex-
pense of any public improvement
without any statuatory rule, and the
Council may apportion such burdens
capriciously and unequally; that the
Legislature is restrained by the Con-
stitution from comforting any such
power.
Tho cases of Williams rs. Detroit,
e H'ch.) and Woodbridge rs. Detroit,
Is M'ch.,) are referred to in support of
this objection.
The first of those cases arose under
provision of the Detroit Charter en-
acted i'll 1911, authorizing the Coun-
Gil to assess for street improvements
on the basis Of frontage on the street
improved, cor otherwise as thoy may
direct" and under an ordinance pass
cd in 1913, directing the assessment
to be made p" by the City Surveyor on
the owners or occupants of the lots or
premises in front of or adjacent to the
avenue or street directed to be graded,
paved or planked," by apportioning
the expense between tho owners of
the lots in proportion TO the frontage
each bore to the entire frontage ON
the Improvement. The Court decided
that the law and the ordinance were
OF the Constitution, but declined to
decide whether a system of assess
ments for public improvements based
entirely and confessedly upon suppos-
ed benefits to result therefrom to tho
property of the owner assessed could
be upheld under our Constitution
The learned Judge who delivered the
opinion of the Court pointed out |
many grave objections in general
terms to that system-obiection
which derive their force from the sun.
posed inequality and injustice of it's
practical working-remarking, also.
that there.is a manifest difference in
principle and practice between that
and the system under which the COM
plainant in the case decided was as
sessed.
Both systems, if they arc entitled
to be considered as two, in virtue of
the difference which shall presently
mention, aim at making substantially
the same persons bear the burden.
and place the burden on them rather
than on all the tax payers of the CITY
or ward, on the sole ground that those
required to pay are deemed to receive
The immediate benefits of the inn
;
The only apparent difference be- ,
.ween the Detroit Charter and that of
East Saginaw, is i'll the mode of adj {
listing the burden to tho benefit
Liy the former as limited by the ordi- (
lance adopted by the Council, there is /,
fixed rule of apportionment estab- i
lshed which required only mechan- q
cal process to apply it. 1t made the 1
BURDEN on individual owners to de- +
'end invariably on their proportionate g
'readth OF front or tho improvement. q
s though the benefits to each were q
Uniformly III proportion to his front n
GO; it thereby limited tho assess /
lents to the lots fronting on the d
treet improved, and consequently cx- 9,
mptcd such lots from assessments for ~
ke improvements on other streets Or
UGH system must have been regard q
d by its advocates as Just on the prin- h
'plo that though the burden is con- Il
ned in each instance to arbitrary n
mits assumed to receive the exclu- !,
We benefits, yet as part of system Fl
II lmaking improvements of such g,
iaracter for whole city laid out n,
18th regularity and requiring the II
'mo amount of improvements in ono f,
art as in another, the assessments II
al be relatively equal when all the r,
nprovements have been made. By ~
lie other, the East Saginaw Charter +,
he assessments are made entirely and
on the basis of benefits, in
nd the Legislature has dolernted to ~