Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-04-26

ments must be proporuOnate TO something and
all proportionate to the same thing. There are
two ways of applying this principle either Of
which may possibly have been in the minds of
the trainers of the act. The assessments might
be made proportionate TO the benefits received
from the sewers or to the value of the estates
The former would seem 10 be more equitable as
well as 10 accord better with the general purport
of the act and TO be suggested by its language
The purpose being to assess upon the estates
benefited their proportionate shares, it is not
apparently strained implication which would
comDlete the meaning and remove any possible
ambiguity by the additional words, according
to the benefits received" But it is not claimed
that the mayor and aldermen were guided by
this rule. The assessments made bear no sort
of relation to the benefits respectively received
by the several estates A different method alto
gether was adopted, and no regard was paid to
the inquiry whether an owner who is required
to pay one hundred dollars was benefited in his
estate one half as much or ten times as much
as another from whom five hundred is demand
ed or, to refer TO one example cited by our cor
respondent, can Old Citizen" there is plainly
no pretext for asserting that an estate valued at
S4.5) a foot, and simply because it is so valued,
is benefited by the sewers little more than
another few rods distant which is valued at
$3.50 per foot, or that a third, intermediate be-
tween these two in place and estimated value,
received triAe greater benefit than either of the
others.
As it did not seem best to the mayor and
~ tba
ate to the benefit received, they had the alterna
tive of making them proporlionate to the value
of the estates; but they did not take this course
either. They have divided the estates by an
arbitrary system of classification, and require
one class to pay two per cent of its value, while
of another class is demanded eight per cent. 1t
would require much ingenuity, as well as bold
ness, to maintain that such an assessment as
this is 'proportionae" to anything. Another
defect in the system adopted, when considered
as an attempt to make n proportionate assess
ment, is found in the fact that the valuation of
estates on which it is based, was that made
by the city assessors forthe purpose of the regu-
lar annual taxation; in most cases the valua-
ton of 1871, but of some estates that of 1870
was adopted; neither was made with any refer
ence to its being made the basis of sewer assess
ment. This might not at first seem to be
an objection, but we think it serions one for
this reason: The estates were appraised by the
assessors according to their Judgment of the
actual value in May 1870 or 1871. Some of the
sewers had then been constTucted others had
not. The estates on the line of sewers already
laid were increased in value thereby and this in
crease entered, no doubt, into the assessors val
uatlon; others, on the line of sewers since
built, had not then received the additional
value which those sewers have given to them and
of course they, like those before mentioned,
were set down at their actual value at that
time. So that in making the valuation on
which the sewer assessments were based, some
estates were charged with the benefit or in
creased value, for which the assessment should
be considered as in some sort an equivalent. and
others were not, and thus another clement of
inequality was allowed to enter into the appor-
tionment.
Our position, and ii seems to us a strong one,
is, that the assessments, to be proportionate,
must be based either upon the benefit received,
in which case they should avowedly and actual.
ly, so far as possible, bear a constant relation to
those benefits; or be based upon the value of
estates, and be equal and uniform. Any other
system, though it might possibly be equitable
in its practical operation, which the present
hardly claims to be, is unauthorized, arbitrary
and invalid IF the board of assessments had
announced the same figures as they have done,
but with the declaration that these figures rep
resented in their judgment the exact benefit
which each estate had received from the sewers,
we might not have high opinion of their judg-
ment but it would be necessary to submit to it,
with the qualification that each person might, if
he chose, have it revised by a jury. In
that case they would appear to have exercised
tine authority with wlich the law entrusted
them. They do not profess to have made such
an estimate of the benefit accrung to each es-
tate. That would be- perhaps they ght say,
an intoerably perpexing and laborious task.
No doubt it would, but in undertaking TO make
proportionate assessments, they assumed the
obligation either to do this, or to adopt some
other method that would give results which
could, without misuse of language, be called
proportonate. They shrunk from the alterna-
tive, because it appeared glaringly inequitabe,
and chose instead an arbitrary system, which, if
We do not greatly mistake, is neither reasonable
nor lawful.
Bat the mayor and aldermen, if we rightly
understand the situation, were not Obliged to
make this assessment either by the method they
adopted or any other under the sewer act of
1867. Previous to the passage of that act, the
city had authority to construct sewers, and to
require persons benefited by them to contribute
to their cost in the same way that has been prac.
tised in other cities, to the general advantage
and satisfaction. The act of 1866, chapter 1919,
to revise and consolidate the charter of the city
OF Worcester, provides in section 80 for laying
drains aud sewers, and that the city council
shall have the power, among other things, ITO
require all persons to pay reasonable sum for
the privilege of opening any drain into said pub
lie drain or common sewer; and also to require
that private drains shall be conducted into the
public drain or sewer in any case in which the
said city council shall judge the same necessary
or proper for the cleanliness and health of the
city," If the matter had been lett here, with
out further legislation, these perplexing ques-
tiOns could never have arisen, and the city
might for years past have been drawing a large
and constantly increasing revenue from the
sewers, as from the water works. Most persons,
we think, will agree that this method of levying
contributions towards this public expenditure
is more simple, more fai' and less burdensome
than any possible modification of that author.
lied by the later act.
The act Of 1857 contained no words of repeal
and did not, either expressly or by implication
destroy the previously existing authority Of the
city council to require a sum for entering Il
sewer That act was accepted by the city by
perhaps the most meager vote ever poled here,
and it is safe to say it would not now receive as
mlny votes in lis favor as it did then, while
more than ten times as many would be cast
against it. The people Of Worcester have
learned something since that time and know
considerably more about sewers, as well as some
other matters, than they did then. To the
present city government belongs the credit
Of having faced and erapplcd with difficulty
from which their predecessors had shrunk adj
hitting the necessity Of immediate action bnt