National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-08-15
CALLING A Halt.

January, 1876 declares that the then water rates
shall be papable and collectbc, &C.. "for the year
beginning January |, 1876, and for every subse-
quent year and section 1g7 of the Revised Statutes
expressly declares thai the Commissioners "haYeau-
clearly means that the rates established shall con
unue during year undisturbod. lt is true the
powet Is given to the Commissioners by the same
section TO modify, alter, amend, increase
or reduce such rates from time to time" but
the statute must be soconstued that no sentence
clause or word shall bo held to be insignificant"
Dwarison Statutes 65SLand according to this canon
Of construction, the power 70 change " from time to
timeo cannot destroy the provision
THAT THE RATE SHALL M AN ANNUAL ONE,
lasting throughout year. Unless this be so. the
COMMISSIONERS might change the rate four times
into quarterly or monthly rate instead of the an
nual one which Congress saw fit to prescribe In the
law. When the Commissioners before the first day
Of January, 1879 determined what the rate should
be for half of the year, they had exhausted their
power, and could make no other establishment of
rates for that year and the rate then established
must necessarily continue unchanged during the
entire year, until January LIST 1880. Any change TO
apply during the year 1850 must be made before It's
commencement, and when made mustremain uni.
form throughout that year. This construction
gives force to all parts of the law. The only
was derived from the law which limited
their power to the establishment Of annual rate.
And Il Is well settled that tribunal or board Of
limited jurisdiction can perform the duties as
signed to 1t only In the manner prescribed IN the
grant imposing the duty Especially Is this the
| case where such bodies arc attempting the exer.
else Of delegated power OF assessing taxes. II Is
upon this ground that the courts have held that a
levy court which Is authorized by law to lay tax
between certain periods in the year. has no right
to attempt thu performance of that duty after the
expiration OF the time limited that tax so i'm:
posed Is Illegal and although II has been collected
by the collector, no action could be maintained on
| his bond for the amount collected BY the opera
| tion of this new schedule the tepayer who has
already paid six months rent during this year
will be required within the same year, TO pay q
further charge for twelve months more. thus pay
ing eighteen months rents within the year. Gould
| commissioners have compelled
of thirty months rent within one year and have
| they any more power granted them 70 collect
eighteen months rent in the same period?
1 For obvious reasons IL might have been consid-
cred important that the corporation should deter
mine beforehand
WHAT WOULD DE THE PROBABLE EXTENT OF THE
REVENUE
during the entire year, while 1t would be desirable
that the owner or renter OF house could be able
to ascertain in advance the amount of the charge
to which he would be subjected for the entire year
But whatever the purpose of the provision may
have been, its requirements seem too plain to i'd
nit of question. 1t therefore results that the Com.
missioners have not the legal right to enforce the
collection of the new rates during any part of the
year of 1879, while their right to collect the old
rate remains unimpaired Tho question now arises
whether this court has the power to order a an in.
collection would be illegal since none other of the
| grounds relied upon IN the bill can be considered
| as justifying the interference of this court
| 1t was insisted upon the part of the counsel for
the District that the supreme Court, In the case OF
| DAVIS vs. Chicago, II Wallace 106 and Hanne-
winkle VS.. Georgetown, Is Wallace 5i7 has settled
the general principle that suit in equity will not
io to restrain the collection of tax on the sole
ground that the tax is illegal but that there must
| exist In addition, special circumstances bringing
| the case under some recognized head of equity
Jurisdiction, such as that the enforcement OF the
| tax would lend to multiplicity of suits or pro-
| duce imparable Injury or throw cloud upon the
| complainant's title to real estate.
| II cannot be denied that the doctrine thus
broadly stated has been adopted by many other
courts but II appears 10 be in conflict with great
number of carefully considered cases where in;
| functions have been granted upon the solcground
| of illegality In the tax
II has been decided that one or more tax payers
without showing any other injury than that which
| they will suffer In common with other property.
| holders of the municipality may file a bill TO re.
strain the allowance and payment of an illegal
claim or the collection of q tax for unauthorized
objects such as for example, to pay q fraudulent
| collusve Judgment, or to pay the expenses of a
railway survey, which there was no power to make
| or to refund to individuals
| MONEY VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTED
by them for the purpose of avoiding draft in the
the Supreme Court of the general language in
Dows VS. Chicago, and the tendency ofthe later case
think the Jurisdiction, on the ground of illegalty
of the tax alone. may be sustained
Especially would this principle apply where
the rate, as In this case is no part of the ordinary
revenue of a municipality butts simply the price
fixed for water like the rate charged for gas to The
citizens, but which happens In this case TO be col
lectable by the District Commissioners, instead OF
! by private corporation.
| Although, therefore, a court of equity would be
more ready to enjoin the collection of an illegal
tax by municipality, where It's interpositon 4
damage cloud upon title and apprehended multi
plicity of suits, yet 1t seems to me but proper Il
should also intervene in the absence of such allie
cations, where 1t clearly appears that the city au
| thorties are seeking to exact taxes from the cti
zens in manner not authorized BY law,
In the case AT bar 1t is admitted that there may
be some 1900 citizens liable TO pay the new rates
This vast number of people, who are substantial,
the owners of the city over whose government thu
Commissioners have been placed. must either pa,
the rates, which this court has decided canno
properly be imposed for this year, and trust to
suit against the Commissioners for reimbursement
or be deprived of the use of the Potomac water
now effectively the only source OF supply OF al
article indispensable for their comfort and thei
health.
For court OF equity to decline to interfer
J under these circumstances might be TO subject
great number of people to this serious destruction
, Of their comfort or to the necessity OF paying tn
crrizEYs PAYING THE ILLEGAL RATE
would either submit in silence TO the eXaction, dc
tered by the apprehension of the trouble and COS
OF a law suit. or they would bring separate action
, TO recover back the amount paid, which would b
TO convert the whole city into an arena for litigG
: tion. Can it, indeed be that court of equit
should witness such scene transacted from day I
day in a great city, and, with folded hands, refus
lief TO the thousands of its inhabltants-suereI
, from an eXaction which the court Itself has dC
Clared to be clearly contrary TO law-because ther
may exist technical right 10 bring an action
. law where the cost of success would prove rathe
? an aggravation of the original injury and an er
couragement of that Circuity ofactlon abhorred b
, d court of equity or because the claim for relic
: for such an exceptional wrong could not be exac
! ly formulated under the ordinary grounds ofequ
able relief II cannot be that the arm of an equit
tribunal should be 50 paralyzed by technical rule
that i would DO inconpetent TO grasp case $
! especially demanding its prompt Interference
And there would seem to be peculiar reasons VIII
such power of equitable interposition should
maintained W its fullest extent In behalf of the eli
liens OF this District, who are placed by law in
situation ut once anomalous and helpless, becaus
deprived of the usual agencies Of selfgoyernmer
universally found existing elsewhere in all Amer
= can communities.
0 Upon the principles Of this opinion the cou
Will pass order oYerruling the demurrer filed
the defendants, and requiring them to answer III
bill and will also order an injunction TO issue
o prayed restraining the defendants from demandin
| or collecting from the complainant the acconi
r for water rents described IN the bill, or any othi
water rents according TO the new schedule for an
part of the year 1879 until the further order Of III
| court
a In conformity with the spirit of tho rule lai
u down BY the Supreme Court In cases of appliGato
a for inmnctions 10 restrain the collection Of taxi
claimed TO be illegal, the issuing Of the inJuncto
:, shall be conditional upon the prompt payment b
y the complainant OF all water rents chnrgeable Il
Il the year 1879, according TO the former schedule
d rates in force on the LIST of January, 1879.