The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-12-23
Taxadon in Cities.

property -owners for Improvement of streets,
has for a long time aggitated the citizens Of
Stanton. the following actioilsof the Supreme
Court of Appeals, which we copy from the
Richmond Dispatch OF the 10th, will prove i'll
tcrestng.
On Thursday last, the Supreme Court Of APP
peals refused 4 rhearng in the case Of Nor
folk city against Ellis, and the opinion OF the
court as delivered by Judge Staples therefore
stands, as follows:
IN has been held by this court that the pro-
vision in the Constitution OF 1851 declaring
that taxation shall be equal and uniform
throughout the Commonwealth, and all prop
erty other than slaves shall be taxed in pro-
portion to its value, Z rclatts to taxation by the
General Assembly for purposes Of State reve-
niue. and does not apply to taxes and levies by
counties and corporations for local purposes
Glkerson against The Frederick Justices, 10
Graft. ST.
The present Constitution however. includes
counties and corporate bodies also. The prohi
bition,. which was formerly confined to the
State government, mist now equally apply to
corporate bodies.
But in either case the prohibition relates to
taxation for purposes of revenue, and net, to
those assessments made by municipal authori-
ties upon the owners OF rea! estate within the
corporate limits for local improvements. These
assessments are not founded upon any idea OF
revenue, but upon the theory OF benefits con-
ferred by such improvements upon the ada
cent lots. 1t is regarded as system Of equiv
alents. 1t imposes tile tax. according to the
maxim that heswho receives the benefit ought
to bra. the burthen; and it aims to exact from
the plrty assessed no more than his just share
Of chat burtliern according to an equitable rule
Of apportionment.
Whether these assessments are to be regard
ed as an exercise of tie taxing power or the
police power, OF whether they are based excllls-
lively upon the idea Of compensation received
in the form of benefits conferred upnn the own
er's property, is a question not necessary now
to be discussed or decided.
1t is sufficient to say that the right to make
such assessments, unless prohibited by some
constitutional provision, is almost neoessar ly
conceded. Concurring with Judge Anderson
thar the power unquestionably exists, that it
is vested in the corporate authorities OF Nor
folk, am led to conclusion the very reverse
OF that which he reaches.
This view seems to be that as the owner of real
estate in a city is liable to assessment only by
reason Of benefits conferred, all levies in ex-
cess OF such benefits are unconstitutional and
! void. But who is to determine whether such
excess does in fact exist? What tribunal is to
settle the question? Are the courts to take
cOgniZance of such cases. enter into a critical
examination OF the assessments, strike a ball
ance of benefit on one side and burden on the
other, aud sustain or annul as the one or the
other may seem to prevail? In a large majority
Of such cases, in the very nature Of things, the
courts caunot We before them the proper ma
terial for such Investigations. do not meail
to say that cases may not occur of such gross
! oppression and injustice as 20 require judicial
interference; but they are exceptional, and
must be decided as they arise upon the partic-
ular circumstances attending them rather
upon any general rule or principle.
4 My understanding has always been, that if
the mode Of assessment is sular and constitu-
tional If the power to levy the tax exists in that
class of cases, the courts are not authorized to
/ interfere merely because they may consider
| the taxation impol.tic, or even unjust and Op-
/ pressivc. In such case the remedy is in the
/ legislative and not in the judicial department.
Cases without mum 3er might be cited in sup
port of this principle. People VI. Lawrence, Al
New York r, 1877; Providence Bank VS.. Bill
lings, 4 Peters, r. 5i4; Langhorne g Scott VS..
Robinson, 20 Graft Gjl, Winre The authorities
are reviewed by Judge Joynes.
In the case before lis, it appears that the
! City Council OF Nolfplk, for the purpose o.
grading and paving its streets, has adopted The
system Of assessment By the front foot on lots
adjacent to the street to b. improved /. The
anne system has been a'lnpted Ill other towns
generally recognizad by the courts as collstitH.
tional and valid. 1t is sustained by the highest
courts in New York, Obi Michigan Wiscoil-
sin, Missouri. California; Ki' sa-. Conneeticut
and Pennsylvania. See Sed5wick on Statute
and Constitutional Laws, 5J2-3-5, and cases
cited in Cooley Const. Limitation, 5o7.
admit therc are some opposing cases, but
neither in number, learning, or weight OF All
/ thorty do they bear any comparison with the
decisions which affirm the validity Of this mode
nfa ~
natural justice it may be sustained as appor
tiuning the burden according to the benefit rs
nearly perhaps as any other that can be
| adopted. That it may in some instances nper-
ate harshly, and even oppressively. is C0ncetl-
/ ed; but this is true OF all forms OF taxation
| 1t has been well said by a learned juriSt,
| taxation is sometimes regulated by one prin
ciple. sometimes by another; and very often it
| is appOrtioned without reference to locality or
to the taxpayers ability to contribute, or to any
| proportion between. the burden and the bene-
| it,
The citizen who is required to pay tax OF
one thousand dollars for the support of free
schools to which he sendsno children, while his
neighbor, who has half-dozen to be educated,
contributes nothing, may well complain OF i'll
| equality of burdens, The county levy for the
construction of . free brd or other local work
not unfreqnently operates with peculiar hard
| ships upon persons residing remote from the
/
| locality; and get no one now questions the va
| lidty of such taxation.
| An 0d valorem tax is regarded as the most
| just and equitable FOR the general purposes of
| government. The reason is that u rich man
derives more benefit from taxation in the pro-
| lection OF his property than a poor man, and
ought, therefore, to pay more The same rule,
however, does not necessarily apply to local
assessments. They are based upon the idea OF
benefits conferred by the work upon the own
eTs of adjacent lots. II the owner of the ull-
improved lot pays only according to its value,
rs ascertained at the time, his contribution is
not in proportion to the benefits derived. The
lot which is worth bit little to-day may, by
the opening, grading, and the paving OF the
streets adjacent, be enhanced in q few weeks
III value to the amount of thousands OF dol
lars. fs-
We are. however, not called upon to decide
which is the most just and equitable system of
taxation; but whether the one Under consider
alton is i'll conflict with the Constitution or
laws OF the State.
And in this connection cannot do better
than quote from the opinion of Judge Rech. OF
the Supreme Court OF Ohio, in the case OF the
Northern Indiana Railroad Company VS.. Con-
molly, 10 Ohio, N. Y, l59. He there states
and answers the objection to this form OF as
sessment, But it is said that assessments are
distinguished from general taxation rests SOLE
" upon the idea Of equivalents; compensa
ton pr0portioned to the special benefits derived
from the Improvement; and that in the case at
bar the railroad company is not, and In the
nature Of things cannot tie. in any degree ben-