National Republican., 1873-09-18

w. ~ ist'pS
No. 20 milis. s..........'..'.....'.... saSs92 ~
No. o, % mills. Goa ,0A s.
And In order 70 accommodate the assessed
property holders the assessments are made pay
able In i've equal parts o. annual instalIments,
commencing In the month OF July, 1873, the nrst
installment TO be paid within thirty days after
notice Of the completion Of the work on n par
ticular section aud the assessment thereof, and
the second, third, fourth and NTH installments
within one, two, three and four years, respec-
The These T sirsnrements, in respect as well of
special assessment applied TO property directly
interested as In respect 10 the privilege accorded
to propeI,y,nolders % assessed seem 20 have oee1 i
Congress Of March ., 1869, regulating the collec-
tion Of Q water-tax on real property within the
limits OF the city Of Washington. tSee United
states laws, vol. 10, p. sot.) And the provisions
Of this act OF Congress were carried into effect
at the time BY an ordinance Of the city OF Wash
ington.
erty-holders the same Ia 70 be certified from
time to time, and TO constitute lien upon the
property assessed, with interest at the rate OF
ten per cent per annum; and the holder Of any
such certincate may cause the property on which
Il Ia charged TO be sold In case OF delinquency,
as In the case Of delinquent deferred payments
secured By trust deeds on sales OF private prop
But the work 70 be done and the materials to
be supplied require to be paid for at once and II
holders, II becomes necessary either that the
District shall incur debt to raise the money
needed. or that the debts Of the indebted proper
y.holders shall be represented in some form Of
obtained without expenditure Of the funds Of the
Dlstrict and without imposing any Indebtedness
10 Accomplish this object, It Is further eu-
acted BY the act OF Assembly 10 question that
the Board Of Public Work. may issue certificates
OF the Indebtedness Of the property -holder for
amount chargeable 70 private property, bearing
interest at the rate OF eight per cent. per an-
mum, and payable In four annual installments
due from Properly vi ySoGsr. "'" Of he respeesiVs s
drainage and sewerage sections Of the cities Of
washington and Georgetown.
Time In payment OF the assessments due by the
property holders, and 10 be discharged ~ they
become due by the commissioners Of the sinking
fund on the assessment certificates, 70 be depos.
| tied with such commissioners by the Board OF
| Public Works. And all assessment certificates
and the assessments on which they are based,
and all payments thereon, are pledged 10 and
ment Of the pnncipal and interest OF the certih-
Gates OF Indebtedness. under the direction OF the
commissioner Of the sinking fund.
the Yinsr AND PRINCIPAL QUESTION
| on which our opinion Is asked Is whether the as
sessment OF the taxes for sewerage on the sew
erai sections Of the Tsrritory are or are not In
law H ss h nas p SSsf 81 m
said District be liable In any one year TO higher
tax for all general objects, territorial aud mu.
nicipsl, than q On every 500 Of the cash value
tcuar sections, wards or districts for their par
ticuar local improvements"
We assume (thougn the fact Ia not specifically
| stated 10 the case before us) that the taxes for
general objects have Already reached the maxi.
mum OF two per cent, or at least that these
taxes for sewerage, II added TO the general
districts 70 higher tsx than two per cent. II.
therefore, these are taxes for general objects,
territorial and municipal" and not 'special
local lmpIovs%snss" tas &C. Of % he IsTrIsoriai
Assembly which authorizes them and the assess.
ment Of them are uitSd sires and void. But that
are Sss and nS hs, ~ ysM
the facts already stated. we think too plain to be
discussed.
4 sewer may be absolutely necessary to the
enjoyment, or may add greatly 70 the value Of
property within certain limits, while It brings no
profit or advantage whatever 10 persons residing
elsewhere, though within the same CITY, Terri
is not local and particular 70 the section or dis
trict benefited BY II, =, 10 our opinion. as near
TO an absurdity IS sensible persons are ever IN
ss ssS; S a.s .nG nav "
one section, while very expensive works are re-
quired TO render other aud remote parts Of the
same city inhabitsbie; - , 49,
latter insist that the expenses shall be equally
| borne by both7 A street or road which accom-
modates only q small neighborhood Is every
where, always, and By all persons regarded as q
local Improvement 10 be paid for by special
taxes. What Is the difference in this respect
between sewer and streetf Without the one
| Inc other you cannot stay there In comfort OF
safety. The notion that 2 drain at the nav,
yard Is an object OF eenersl, common. and eqqa
and shat, therefore, the heights OF Georgetown
must necessarily be taxed for 1t, does not strik,
| us as at all sound or true.
BuL assuming 1t 70 be doubtful whether sewer
| In rtlr rul q 4 n DaFtiruluI
and local Improvement for which the Inhabitants
or property Of the section Oscially benefited By
Ne qaTse se,dfye q e oy sPscA tax
| THE ORGANIC ACT
does not declare what improvements are
local or what are general, but leave sail I'm
fial Assembly, and TO pay for one class BY gen
| eral tar, and for another by special assessment
| The Assembly, by the act before US, has ranget
several S % sections. Is not this determination O
the question: Can any judicial or other author
| lty get behind III
Legislature upon this point, as expressed In the
act under consideration, Is conclusive. Of course
we are not now saying that a sct of me Terri
t0rial Legislature would be y1u u " laid sPecla
/ taxes for an object clearly, manifcstly and pal
/ pably general In It's character; but only thAt 4
| point Ike this, open TO controversy, which the
Legislature was compelled 10 decide, hnd Whlch
II has decided In the regular performance OF The
| duty cast upon il, Is not open to dispute again
before the Judicial or any other department Of
| the government
| II the courts should be OF opinion that the
| sewers are not local improvements, still they
luld not deny that the contrary Is settled ny the
proper authority, and that makes an end OF the
| llspule, The courts do not revise legislative
acts because they are supposed 70 be erroneous,
| They can only set them aside as void u It be
shown that the body which passed them Ii with
out iurlAdlctlon or authority over the subject
matter. Win anybody say that there Ia no jurIs-
dlctlon here7
fnality OF the legislative decision, even II erro-
neous, we repeat our conviction that the Assem-
bly, wis rightia treating sewers as local Improve
menis, and we think it was It's duty TO provide
for having them made upon some plan OF special