, 1873-11-16
Full Text,f the Opinion De-
1iverd by Judge
Bseese.
The Assessment Not a Local In"
provonppt Within the Mean-
inf Of tie, 0onsti-
tuition,
Unconstitutional Swapping Of Assess
ments ~ the Corporate Autlori-
ties Of North Chicago and
Lake View.

AtGA1toA LII Luo lllnc0lu IhrK AAscaBTneut cuaot
reversing tho '1odsion Of Judge Williams. FOL
1osingis the full oxt Of tho opinion Of Chisf JUS
tioe DreoBes
ot February, 1902, p,su.l act entitled AN aet.o x
the bounares Of Licoln park IN tho City Of Chcago
s9d e. s R,'ys ,1spSs M r. gs y tic L. It, ss
=. atreet, ,., not exceeding i$9 loot in Width,
On the 4th of March, 1850, Ut Tic sao scssion, thie
snnroyea Anil - 1867 the Original aet was further
amonded, bestowinK upon tho Commissioners power
s:ts M 1aio E pp w.; az saA caer o ths
Honors Of IincoIn park proceeded to carry ont tho
seycr1 nro,ious loaying the park ineopstsa ut tho
n@91n in q tue present GGnssion 5 Ater s II 9o
t87l passed. net entslod IAN net tu regard to tho
compilation Of public parks md the manage there-
Supervisors and Assessors q Eo towns Of NO Nortl c
ego aud Lake View proecedod to assesa ''l9n the
Rpessy Of these tons The nrolable Gost for TUG Gu
Tlts assessment wns c0ntrnel by the circuit Court
ol Cox County ores the objections Of Appellants,
2nugmtnt appellants bring the case here, and insist,
1rst, ny the ast cited get e M amendment Of all
o Ss 10 a osn @ see
13 OF Art Of tho Constitution. That section pro-
vides tlat do'aw shall be revived amended by refer
amended alall bs inaertcd ut loug! III tho new net
We are unable 10 lnrce,vc from the cyidcnco before
lation to Lincoln Park It Is not 10 expressed on lis
face We earo ,.uable aay that 1neon Iark wn1, or
Is, .he only psrk Mithn s State whlch Lad not been
aught know thero might hayo Ssen MOI moro t thn one
Park laid out mud in proGsss Of completion within the
n III s s aa fyo e ths SSn'ss ass te e
ns e f3psg aat @ aud hsrsog'
1aee, public general law, ad lu ohr oujnion nnsscd
In compliance with tho. Constitution. Vas ths eyi.
dence before us that this act could 10 maso appcab,
to Lincoln Park ouly, VIC would be compelled to ho!i
phcrwisc but we SEQ nohng iu tho aet to force scI
It Is nc1t Objected by appellants that tho Circuit
Court had no Jurisdiction 10 conars tho nsvcssulcu
Secs. ind Of the net Of 1871, under which thes
Judgment shall bo obtained on tic aHsessrnents, t' a
contend that Sec: 1s Of Art. Of the Constituiiql
to hear mud determine Blieh assessments. The pr-
vision 49, In substance, that County ooura sha luto
ofEal Of 5d In proceedings for tho coee
rhero Is nothing u tlia cause requiring ,s to hold
that BY thts graut Of original ur.adicon in Tho apee
stye The same BY Section IL thu .ae
article, provides thut Circuit Courts slnl have original
5uradio!ion Of all earses IN law and otsty, sach
appellate Jurisdiction as iH, nlay be- provided by
eior rens ind ude VI Ind ali theso c. constituents
y Vt law Of whlcn tho Circuit Court had juris-
ictiou. by the eecond SECTION Of the Eamo article Of
Court aull havo original jursdction In cascs relating
to the revenue n '"andaaaus and habeas corpus yet
who doubts that Circuit Courts being courts Of general
Jurisdiction can be clothed by statute with tho power
to hear and determine actions the bonds Of Collec
tors Of Revenue and award writs OF nlandamus aud
faFrc.l upon them by statute. cl. o7 Il. S., tt!o
"antla.nus," ISL. ib'd, ch 4e, titlo 'Iabcaa Cor
Il is further insisted by appellants that tlo asscsp-
mont sa not in conpasce with Section 10 of Article
of tho Constitution, which requires TINT tnxes shall 10
h reafG y TO- % sna property within
such Is tho III cateu Of tasaion bus ofeu
been decided ty this Cort.-Boar Of Supervisors OF
ilaroaa Company: a 4liSd. linSoi.s, 10; Ths oh5esso
SsSS!:sSs Sss:;s; & e. nSsSs s S 10 aH
Il claimed however, by appcllces tl1at tlefo pro-
cecdtngs wore had under lo i!rst clnse Of sectton
"Ihe General Assembly may vest the corporate
authorities Of ctca towns, and Villages With power to
mako local improvements by. special assessment
ery Or a otherwiae.S This eiansa sa1 Is Rro Rropt
Of nrowcr to the General Assembly, and how
i87l. sectioa Of that act provides, 'As soon On as
practicahc, specal aasessMont may DO nado by tho
Supervisors aud AEseasora corporate authorities Of
on a tho lands and lots within tne CORPORATE limits Of
nueh town benefited by tho proposed Improvement
so n o to not sc
fits resulting tAcseto by alcl. nroposed Improvement
anu enlargement but tue aggregate amount Of SUCH
taking such an1 au the costR and oxpeuses Incident
to s'ich takng the costa ad cxpenscs OF said apraise
tho same, and The prabubo increase Of damuucs' an
costs and expenses a ease appeals shal bo akon Of
whicl such corporate authorities aha'l 10 tho judges.
AS we understand this section, tho report must Hhow
what amount wGh assehsed nEaus, each separate tract
TIC testimony Of Mr CULVER, ono Of the Aeacssoru,
WHO agnea tAe report, al'ows that tls not done.
A gross BlllI was GaQnfCu fta
oo0 which included tho probable damages This
wis done by tho officers q North Chicago aud Of Lai:o
View Jointly as officers Of thc sumo municipality 1t
sas necessary, under tho Law, that the report should
chow that the assessment WIS nato upon the basis
vers testimony lhat attor tho asrossn,out Of tho two
towns ws tn Act nac there WAS adcl to the gross
sun ar.s Z, ,. non u hs property IN Nor Chicago
pcriority of improvements. se uro ut loss to ner-
esty9 by whit authority Tho Board Of Assessors added
Nprsh Chtengo and Lake Viow on tho property Of oo
atio9 md sesory d i@lsosesats. 5 TSe 9'a1 a4o
not ee1utltB To he taken into tie account but tho ben
ets t. property within tho territory in which tho ro-
9oao! Improvements are to 10 Nlatle. 10 loll TINT
work to throw upon portion Of this territory s20o
D0o after itH yalua hal bean aasessed OH tho boss
stated would W.: them with 1nos arbitrary power,
Eud OF tie most dangerous tendency,
Though this IL MI assessment 1,ider tho ctause Of
Tho Constitution Of 1870, which wo },nyo quoted
md ease arcin ner he .is ps%ss:. awer sun IL
the of tho Doard OF Supervisors Of bureau Uo,.
y Y. Tho Ch1eago, Burlington l. t9uIncy lIarolt
Company "a ILL.,, 123), the K"roal Company roturnd
TO the Asstssor snleulu Of their taxable lroperty
that county, required by .w, which, upon e1amln.-
non proved to bo moro llhu:al III regard to valuation
tan the other property III tho county assessed by tlo
tiitferent To"?uhIr Arsessora but, notwithstanding
thla Tho Hoard Of Supervisors added 10 per cent u
aane. upnn appeal 10 this Court, 1t waB hold tho
aeanment thus lruio upon tho railroad property Wan
anauthorized mud yoid for want of uniformity
~ may ne aan1tesa nt the rrinolple ct uniformity
- not INC main prnclru Which tho assessments liz
tnla case we're to u mRde Int they were to 10 nade
tne vuo " INC property n proportion to tho benefits
& ALef they were nac, We cannnt ulslcratand
WY *looun hhoEl be apd Hl the },rp1erty of NORTH
tu!GasV neFn We hpprtxt Ut tAn rtlu which uayuril.
hu tAo noasa OF A5stsAors, we ,aiH ~! consider 1t
uhteasonAne aEote density Of population md al,1,u.
elory 2! npFoVcneut9 aro no Of the,nye!yud au IT,
It next Insisted by appellants TINT the ,Hscssont
10 not fos corporate purisuse. The rroysion IN Hnc
OF Art Of The Constirutiau aboya ojtaI nrnviIs.
na. tho uensTal o assembly may ycst iho cprporo
make local tnlprn7entnts." Istle ukaery,e m ~;
park local improvement within tho ursu!I,r If thn
plallss7 ~ '"'a
from thu evidence in the record, II annenru tt,u
park III to bo constructed within tbs cort,oratc limts
Of two tnwng. The property III butl tic towns ia ms
lesscd 70 detray tho costs and expenses Of Acqirns,
tAo and aud Improving hu park, a,.d aHsessuea nf,
nNitl thnaa tn,r,,s