National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-07-13
DISTRICT CLAIMS.
Report Of the Commissioners in Reference to
Special Imurovement Assessmants

The District Commissioners have 81 omitted to
the Senate Committee on the District Of Colum-
bia report upon bill which had been referred
to them for the relief of certain PROPERTY holders
on Sixth street. The bill referrea to directs the
Commissioners to pay the suns of sjJ3 and 1879
to two property holders. said amounts being
alleged to have been er.Oneously collected from
them l'r sPecial lmr royements on property on
that street, between F and G streets northwest.
The Commissioners say: I'm any view of tn
case the same is excessive" The assessments
were settled by these persons In eight per. cent
certincates of indebtedness, known ''green-
pacEs, !" which are by law receivable in payment
fIr special improvements. The market value of
these greepbacks is below their face value. In
payment Of assessments they are received at par
The bill eontemplates the repayment to these
men as though they had paid their assessments
in money instead Of in script, the market value Of
which is much below par. Under any crcum-
stances this would be
ANExcEssIvE ALLOWANCE.
There are, however, other considerations which
seem fatal to favorable and special legislation
The claims are two-fold the first br.nch refers to
the mode in which the property Of the claimants
was assessed for pavements. In the mode of as
sessment, however, there was no departure from
the rules according to which assessments for spe-
cial improvements have for nearly five years been
made by the authorities of the DiStrict The uni
form mOue OF assessment acted upon by the CON-
missiOners, in these and all other cases, was
adopted after careful consideration, and is be-
lieved to be in accordance not only with law, but
also with equity. There is no more reason for
setting it aside and making reimbursement to the
present claimants than there is for the same &C
tion in respect Of other persons who have paid
their assessments.
THE SECOND BRANCH OF THE CLAIMS
in question has reference to the allowance made
by the board of audit, under act of June 20, 1877,
for old material taken from the streets of the city
The board Of audit was composed of the first and
second comptrOllers of the Treasury. There is no
reason to question the carefulness and good faith
of the action of that board in the two cases men,
toned. If the decisions of the board of audit are
to be reviewed in these cases. there will be the
same reason for reviewing them in numerous
other instances. Even when parties having claims
over which the board of audit had jurisdiction
failed TO present them to that board we doubt the
eNpediency of subsequent legislation in favor Of
the claimants.
1t was intended that the board OF audit should
close up the whole business of claims over which
1t had jurisdiction, and abundant opportunity
was afforded to claimants to present their cases
Except under extraordinary circumstances, we do
not think that allowance made by the board of
audit should be increased, or that parties who
failed to avail themselves of the ample Oppor-
tunity for hearing before that board should now
receive legislative awards in their favor. Upon
more careful consideration, We doubt he wisdom
of cur allowance of the drawbacks in the re-
ferred to, ard would rule against them were they
now before us for consideration