Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-04-10
The Main Sewer Law.

This law, 20 little understood, Is still the sab
ject Of much adverse criticism. Ii is unequal
III its operation unjust and oppressive. Now
what are It's terms or provisions? What great
wrong does IT enact? We learn by an examina-
Ton OF thc law, sbd by inc diries in proper quar-
trrs' that the cities OF Washington a2d George
town arc divided into tive drainage districts,
These five districts are-1st. Tue civ IF q sorys-
town, p, the Slash Run dIstrict-that is, all of
Washington west Of 18th street northwest and
north OF N street northwest; Sd. all of Washing
ton between and X streets north west, aud
west OF 18th street northwest; 4th, all north of
Il street northwest, between 9th and 18th streets
northwest; 5th, Tiber Creek basin.
The taxes levied under the law in these seve-
raj districts embrace the actual cost of the
main sewerage necessary TO the drainage of the
area of the respective districts. Thus, in
Georgetown, or the first district, where the sew
GRACE necessary was comparatively light, the
tax Is screen mills per square foot Of the lard
drained. In the second, or Slash Run district,
where the sewerage il heavier, the tax is eleusa
mills. In the third district, where the sewerage
Is light, the tax l. re mills. In the fourth aud
nth districts, where the area drained Is very
great, and the necessary sewerage according
~ large-large in extent and IN the dimensions
OF the sewerage, and its cost proportionateIy
heayy-the tax is tJCenty mills.
Here We have abstract of the law in its
terms or provisions, and the grounds upon
which they rest. Let US examine them. Its
legality We do not propose to discuss. That, we
submit, Is established by the opinions of such
able counsel as Hon. Jere. Black and Richard
5. Cox. But we propose to examine them in
the light Of the principal objection urged
against the la1-that its provisions are unequal
IN their operations where all affected equally
benented, one portion OF our citizens being
more heavily taxed than others, which it is
claimed is unjust.
VI course, for the reasons explained above
the law Is unequal in its levies. because the
quantity Of sewerage built in the several dis
uiets l. unequal. The division OF the cities of
Washington and Georgetown into five drainage
districts was not An arbitrary one: il was forced
upon the board by the typographical conf 9ura-
ton Of the territory drained. That il explained
IL the report OF its engineer for 1873. The sew
erage system Of each district l. separate and
distinct in itself, although forming a part OF
general system which embraces the i've dis
ulctsi anu no part Of the sewerage OF one dis
Iict Grains any portion OF another district: the
area OF each district u drained by tn sewerage
OF Its district. Tie Citizeus Of the respective
districts, therefore, are benefited only by and
70 the extent Of the sewerage OF their particular
district. Hence, II not the law necsssA Ii!y uu-
equal IN It's levies? l. il not Justly 80? Would
II be just, ia the distribution OF taxes for the
payment OF the sewerage, TO assess upon the
citizens OF one district any portion Of the levy
necessary TO cover the sewerage of another
district AID by which they are not imme-
diAtely benefited? Would il not be unjust?
But It Is urged by some that the sewerage is for
the general health, and ali, consequently, are
equally benefited. That is partly true. All
are benefited, but not equally so. But admit
ting it 10 be true-admitting that al are equally
benehted-isit not equally true Of ali our i'm
provements; Of the Improvements OF our streets
as well as the main sewer improvement? The
paving, parking and eurbing along a mans
property is not merely for the benefit Of that
property, but for the benefit of all who walk or
ride. The streets and avenues are common
thoroughfaIes. In their improvement all are
equally benefited, and the new pavements and
parking upon them, ard their cleanly condition,
ADDS as much . the general health-to the sani-
tary Improvement Of the District-as the main
sewers will. But would it be just to tsx man in
front of whose property runs merely a graded
street, a grayeled roadway or a cobblestone
pavement, as much as the man in front of whose
property is an expensive WOOD or concrete pave
ment? Would il not be unjust? But would it
be more unjust than the taxing of the citizens
of the first, second and third sewer districts for
the heavy and costly sewers of the fourth and
Eth districts?
Regard il, therefore, as we may, in the light
of our present information, IL Is plain that the
only method or plan upon which in justice The
assessments or levies could be made fer the
building Of the main sewers, is the one followed
In the law.