Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1868-12-04
THE coNsTITuroNALITY or THE
GRAVEL ROAD LAW.
peolsIon Of the Supreme Court.


s rssial Dispsich to the Cincinnati Gazette.
InpIANApoLIs, November %.
The case Of Law aud other vs.. the
Smyrna & Graham Turnpike
Company In appeal from Jefferson county,
and insolving the constitutionality Of the
gravel road Law, which was passed By the
last Legislature and which has created go
much feeling in certain sections, was de-
cided to-day In the Supreme Court. The
opinion is Is follows; . ien
e'set 3h OPINION.
The appellants flied their complaint
aserriog that they, the owners Of real es-
tate wiihin one aud sone-half miles Of
either side Of the terminus Of the spellees'
road, the said sppelees being corpora
ton organized under the act Of 1887 su--
thorizing the construction OF plank, mac
adamized and gravel roads. q q. aud II.
474) Itis alleged that the appellees
have procured the Board Of County Com
missioners Of Jefferson county to make an
assessment OF the benefit to accrue from
the location and construction Of said road
TO the real estate belonging to the appel
lapss, and that the Auditor Of said county
is proceeding to place the amount 50
assessed upon the TAX duplicate for the
year 1867, TO be collected as other taxes.
An Injunction is prayed for against the
sppellees and the Auditor aud Treasurer
oil said county. Issues we're formed aud
trial bad, resulting in specisl finding
by the Court for the appellees. The point
presented by the record for our consider
alton is the legality Of the assessment up.
on the real estate for the purpose Of the
construction and completion Vt the road.
This assessment is made under the au-
thority Of an act authorizing the assess
ment 10 the extent OF the benefit received
Of ell the lands within one aud one half
miles on either side, or within one aud
cue half miles Of The terminus Of any
plank. macsdamized OF gravel road or.
gained under the said acts Of 1852 (scis
Of 1867, page 1917. Il is objected that
this mode Of requiring the payment Of
money, is in conflict with that part of
section 22. article 4 Of our State Constitu.
ton, which prohibits the General Asseun-
bly, from passing local or special laws for
the assessment aud collection Of axes for
the State, county, township or road pur-
poses. II is also insisted that ID comes in
conflict with the frat section Of article 10
OF the Constitution, which reads as follows:
The General Assembly shall provide by
law for uniform aud equal rate Of assess
ment and taxation, and shall prescribe
such regulations IS shall secure a just val
uation for taxation Of all property both
real and rers,nl,' &c.
In the case Of Palmer VS.. Strumph, at
the May term Of this Court, we examined
the question as 10 the constitutional power
of The Legislature 70 provide for the con
struciion and Improvement OF the streets
in cities by assessing upon adjoining prop
erty so much Of the benefits which should
result to such property as might be re-
quired to defray the expense Of such I'm
provemcnf. We found in what seemed
TO Us fair, reasonable const, uciion Of
the language Of the instrument which can
alone limit tho legislative power, ample
authority for this method Of requiring
each piece Of property which received a
peculiar and special benefit FROM such a
work Of Improvement to contribute toward
the expense incur cd, at least some portion
Of lis enhanced value. The only limit, il
seemed 10 US, upon the exercise OF this
power In any given case, was that the rate
OF assessment should be uniform and equal
upon all property receiving special bene-
a.; that is. On advantage from the improve.
nent not enjoyed by the owners Of ell
other property. This, Of course, requires
that the subject matter for which the
assessment is made, results In local bcne.
III TO property within some special dis
trict OF country, aud that among the
motives which prompt the Improvement
this special benefit is not lost sight Of In
the mors general and larger good result
Ing to the people AZ ciiizens, aud entitled
10 the genera care and protection of the
law making power In common.
To aid US In the construction We placed
upon the provision, wo have cited from
our organic law. We looked. indeed, 60
the general course Of legislation ~ II ex
'sied on such subjects before, Of the date
VI, and subsequent TO the adoption Of that
law. From that examination
NO found thar the rule charging upon
receiving specisl benefit from
any authorized local Improvement the OK.
penses attending such work. has been
long and constantly recognized, and, in.
deed, almost unchailenged In this State.
Such a continued course Of legislative
action certainly strengthened us In the
conviction that the Convention which
formed the Constitution under which We
ire now acting intended TO recognize dis
Iinction between the general powers Of
taxation for purposes In which q citizen
Dr. inhabitant Of either the State or small
territorial divisions all are generally in-
aud assessments FOR improve.
nenis resulting la a special benefit TO
and, therefore, reasonably aud
Justly chargesble with the expenses there.
81. The right to appropriate private
property TO public use, to take for
highway o strip Of land, springs from the
right Of eminent domain. The power 10
Assess upon the adjoining property bene-
Lted by such highway being made, the ex-
penso Of its construction, tests on the pow.
,r aud right Of the State 10 tax, bat
Convention may require
hat the general taxation shall be upon a
ust valuation Of ell property both real
md personal, and may also authorize the