, 1870-04-15

dyiaon Of the cost should be mAde. and the lnvJ
reach III property hcnensed especially thereby
1ea s eope o. IL sae M made
shall aiso besE sts equitable proportion OF LIE coss
thereof ..,,
70 Oe carried out the equity Of dlstbnuon o. coes
would appear and probably satlaty u thM ;,,,. ne
stretch of power beyoud oon.:saaona a,a nIl, ih.t
vested Il In the corporation, wRs not aanXefons "
tne liberties Of The ta1.payrrs or g1ieyonsay oppFs-
a. WAT i tse iav7 In the celebrated Laned
casc gsth Illinois Repona, page so3 SD, whien
was carried 10 the Supreme Court ov the cny, "
The property Of a. 1ttEtors because u inc !es{ !f
paving Wabash avenue, from kandalph 70 Eo1n-
tseuih street being made upon 3nulns ny tn ean,t.
BILE system, upon which the theory was 1ounasu ~
above p1tsented, and where thu Supfeme Cnu!t
sustained the Judgment ID iayof @ o. 1ne ~
basis Al abuve- The Court, bJ Nfress, 1nss,cc'
says In rendering the Judgment traKe Sh,:
which pisces the burden upon the property ada
cent 10 thf improvement Il q more cqultahlc ar-
por,lonment thAn II 1nposed upon the entire
ruc that the grading. pairing, etc. Of strett !u
Chicago. or other iatEe snd GEpmlnG siy, Is more
local Improvement ne s3rsnse q Which sd5aseat M
public benefit, extending throughout the char
tered nnnlts Of the city; anil not the owners Of
nropey On Masasn avenue ana aalssed Fret
ine. . &c, of Isfs. Rsniolpa, er si DssreoTn BON
or clark streets7 It 50, should they not bear
q fair proportion Of the expense to 0e nsssxseT3,
Tn the principle OF valuation and uniformity. and
Of benents7'' And further: - Entertaining no
doubt thai ~ grant Of l9Hes = the C.y counSll
1cct OF taxation, We arc compelled, ~ ! scnsc Of
cur duty, 20 10 declare, and tn hold N assessment
for Improvements maIe On the basis Of the 'front.'
age Of the lots upon the street to be Improved in-
valid, as containing neither the element nf c7ua!-
isy nor uniformity, II a9sesse.i under the taxing
Iower; and II, Id exercise OF the right Of eminent
s,omaln, cquAiys invalid. no compensation what
evcr being provided or even contemplated By the
pare with The system updn which our Doard OF
Public Works now act7 l ttltm that they now do
exactly Whist the 5uptrme Court IN tn!s case de-
clASed wrong. And instead of rectlfJtnx thels
erroneous action in later assessments, shey con-
| tuuc absolutely the sA1ne course, and % esade
this decision have resorted to the gueter1uge OF
The papers, Whereby they ciasu compliance With
| the law according to The theory hctctofore pro.
I sented, And pretend y pay back in ne way o.
| hcncnts conferred BY the contemplated improve.
mens upon The property upon which the asseas:
ment fails the eIkct amount received or demanded
| fIon IL ....
lot is benefited by The whole improvement to the
! exact amount II costa 10 improve that portion
o nc q sa1 q ee
probably there the cost ii 30 light In comparison
| that they do not fear resistance through the Su
aWa r. Spencer, 4s1h IL Ren ,. iii, he Cd ieci.iol
| wes positive and shscIutc that the improvement
hy sidewalk wns OF such Apuoltc nature that II
eempslIea d to puIld t os besr is expense built b
the sltt.
4 careful comparison OF assessment rolls mad
to, viii show thsi what i have ssid about IN
tne iet1er of the lsws is held ,nv,oste It Is onl
iilust1aton oniy-Wa1rant l,o6s, ParT avenue d
| the southeast cotncI OF Reuben street Is . lot
fett wiac, fronting on 1se1ben, md rs fee
Il a lot 100 feet wide, fronting On Reube
md running 1s5 feet a]on4 Park avenue. Thes
Two lota. one being oi nearly douels tic vaiQe
assessed eI1ctly The same amount Ter front fot
as Ill the other lots, which rs feet deep from
ing On Park arrnae In the same block
Hut when we may try TO Inquire why this ts 40 {
| why any other KTpss iETcgular1ry e11sr6, we ~
estopped BY the claim that the members Of ii
Board Of Public Works hare acted In iudlci
c1pRcity-hhye performed their duty under oAs
and thclT acts done In that capacity being mere
the exercise Of The judicial discretion with Tnie
they ar clothed, cannot be called In question b
causc unless fraudulent intent 70 commit wrot
I can Ike proved upon them their acts are 6nal at
OBLIGATORY no matter how errontous OF tneql
, table
neceAsasy, in order tn enforce the decre2s of tn
- irresponsible board, that the courts called to =
The N IN collection Of the assessments thus Rtl
i tranly lmposcd, should rrTc1se the general a
= = hitherto nniveibal rules OF practice under viii
= the plaintiff must prove hts case before he Is en-
! tied TO Judgment. and 1t must be thrown on t
defendants 70 prove IN the face OF all the lsttl
tons that can he devised hy the plaintiffs ad1
Gates Assisted hy the court that they have =
lated the letter Of the law else the defendants
not entitled 10 any retlFcsa. The merits and ca
t!ea Of the defence cannut he presented, aud II I
papet1 do not themselves show a clear vioIatl
OF Law, there 10 no escape from the payment
AS+ff& 10 hSoay nm In fhhf
impose ... z r Bowk;
e CHICAGO, April II, 1ssnL