Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-07-29
THE PAVEMENT TAX.
The vcxcd question before the Coun'
ciI--Iteport Of the COMMITTEE
of Citizens.
Opinion OF the city Attorney Ad'
verse 20 any Change In the Pres
emit Method OF Payment.

City Hall last evening, at which a quo
rum of members were present
A message was received and read from
Mayor Letwich, stating that the meet
ing had been called with view to con
sidering the complaint made at recent
meeting Of citizens against the present
plan Of paying for the Nicolson pave
ment.
Alderman McDavi.t said there seemed
to be some trouble in the city relative to
the payment for the Nicolson pavement
after the contractors had been going on
for two years. 1t was necessary that
some definite action be taken in the mat
ter. 10 his opinion they could not annul
any contract entered into by previous
Board. He would move the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, Our predecessors, under an
act Of the Legislature, passed OCTOBER
1866, have let out contracts for the pave
ment of certain streets in the city accord
| ing to the terms and conditions OF the act;
and
WHEREAS, Said contracts have been in
a great measure completed by the parties,
and payment has been made to them by
many of the citizens for work done in
front of their property; therefore
Resolred, That the Board OF Mayor
and Aldermen of the city Of Memphis
will adhere to the plan already adopted
for the completion of the contracts with
| the Nicolson pavement.
Resolred, That, not having the power
to change the terms and conditions OF
pay ment by the owners, will insist that
the payment shall be according to the act
of the Legislature.
Alderman Passmore said that a COM
mittee had been appointed by the meet
ing of citizens lately held, and he
thought they ought to be heard on the
subject
Mr.. F. A. Tyler addressed the Board
on behalf of the committee appointed at
the citizens meeting He commended
that it was illegal to call on citizens to
pay for paving opposite their premises,
and quoted several authorities on the
subject. He urged that the tax should
be imposed on all citizens, and that
those who had already paid be credited
in the several amounts paid on
the city tax book. He wanted a
committee appointed to investigate
the entire matter, and consult with
the City Attorney, as many of the legal
gentlemen of the city we're of opinion
that the entire proceeding was illegal.
Mr.. Tyler alluded to the hardships that
many widows and poor people had to en-
dure in being obliged to pay for the
paving opposite their property, and in
many instances being compelled to sac
rifice a portion of it in order to raise the
amount claimed.
| Alderman McDavitt said he had OPP
posed the laying of the Ncolson pave
ment, but when he saw that the citizens
were in favor of it, he did not make fur
Their objection. He had also made in
ouiry, taken the opinion of several lead
ing lawyers in the city, and they all
stated that the Board of Aldermen would
be obliged to carry out the present con-
tract. He thought they ought to hear
the opinion of Mr.. R. ]. Morgan, City At
torney, on the subject.
Mr.. R. j. Morgan then addressed the
Board. He said that this was a question
of law, and the Board had really nothing
to do with the hardships that any parties
might endure The paving contract was
made under the amended charter of 1866,
which directs the plan under which pay
ments shall be made, and that is that all
property owners shall pay for the paving
of the street Immediately. The Board of
Mayor and Aldermen for the years 1867
entered into the contracts for paving the
streets, and they, therefore, could not 60
behind these contracts or the provisions
of the charter, as they have not the power,
and it would be illegal to do SO. The
question was an open one, and had been
adjudicated on in the Supreme Court of
Tennessee, as would be found in 6,
Humphreys, and two decisions in Swan
reports, and it is there shown that the
property holder is entitled to the half OF
the street in the front Of his property,
and the authorities can make him pave
that portion, as it is permanent improve
ment, or for the removal of nuisance.
Thiswas the case of Swain ys.the Alabama
railroad, in which the plaintiff got dain'
ages for the railroad taking possession OF
an alley opposite his property, of which
he llsimed the one-half, on the ground
that, as a property owner, be owned the
street to the center. These are settled
questions. As many as half dozen OF
the most eminent lawyers had come to
him in regard to this matter of paying
for the pavement. and when he had
shown them the charter, they invariably
advised them to pay the amount claimed.
He supposed this question had been
finally settled.
Alderman johnson moved reference
of the whole matter to the Mayor,
Finance Committee and City Attorney
for report
This motion, however, was lost, and
the resolution offered by Aid. McDavitt,