Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-08-14
AGAINST THE WATER RATES
DECISION OF JUDGE Hl0N1R.
Injunction Against Collection a
New water Rates Gr0ntod.

Judge Hagner. before whom the case of Car
penter agt. the Distr1ct-bill to enjoiu the ool-
lection OF water rates under the recent repula.
tions-was argued last week, rendered his
decision. There was quite q large assemblare
OF members OF the bar and citizens.
The opinion opens with statement OF the
case and the provisions OF the law In reference
TO the supply OF water as also the provisions OF
the order OF the Commissioners prescribing the
rates ana the prayer The court refers 70 the
confusion OF statement In not Distinguishing be.
tween "water rates. and "water taxes In the
consumers for the use OF water. the latter refer
TO the assessment against lots, whether I'm.
proved or vacant, to defray the cost OF mains or
te last which are TeGuTd Te Sy aecon enH g -
equal and uniform, and It was not until June
1879, that the requirement OF uniformity was
exacting equality in the apportionment. The
judge then refers TO the general principles
which are supposed to govern the actions OF
the court, and cites a number OF authorities.
There is no distinct averment OF 'trrepar.
able injury In the bill. IL Is true the courts do
an terms, but whether explicitly expressed or
not, they exact that the facts disclosed shall be
sufficient to constitute, In the opinion OF the
judge, case OF irremedisble damage. In nv
opinion, the averments OF this bill do not SET
forth such case. IL is not alleged that the
CT 1mplaiDant has no other supply OF water rea-
SODdDly convenient IOI his III Cfat from the
Potomac should be cut on. For aught that ap-
pears In the bill there may be an abundant SUP
ply from other sources at his door: nor is ft
charged that his house would be seriously In
jured In value or otherwise by the withdrawal
OF the water, or that the personal comfort OF
himself or his family would be seriously inter-
tered with. Even If the reference to "the
charge that the new rates are In fact ex-
horoitant, Jet such excessive charges n
corrected py warrant would not constitute
% Ar,rn t.,o
as "1rreparablen In tie sense in which the term
Is understood In the equity courts. The alleged
circumstance that the water supply in the
compiainant's house and In the neighborhood
In which he resides is scant, however loudly II
may appeal to the appropriate authorities for
relief, so far from supporting the idea OF ire
the damage TO result from withdra wing the
water would be but slight The exaction Of an
excessive charge for the water presents no case
OF irreparab.e damage, since a suit could be
maintained TO recover the excess IL paid under
protest. II the water should be cut OF In dc.
fault OF an illegal rate an action OF trespa1
OF 81 for cutting on the water is Illegal as is
averred, the citizen could successfully defend
en- action brought to recover ft.
fSe m Se 1ss taa the
Columbia was admitted by the answer, and
that this circumstance would constitute a case
OF 1rreparable damage which should In
lection OF the rents, as the rate-payer
would be unable to collect the money
after recovering Judgment against the bank
lupt corporation. Even IL the allegation were
established, tits fact would constitute no
ground for granting the relief. Before q suitor
can rely upon this allegation he must show the
court that lac has exhausted all chances OF re-
covering his debt by execution prosecuted with
diligence. But the question whether muni-
cpality Is insolyent or not, is not matter that
can be determined upon the admissions OF q
demurrer. 1t is something more than q mere
question OF fact as TO which parties may be
concluded by admissions.-1l Nd, Tucker v,
and 1t is wen settled that by mandamus q ms,
nicipality may be compelled to levy upon the
property OF its citizens TO discharge q judg.
Brown. 81 U. s., 2s7. It may wen be DOUBTED
whether a court should entertain q plea OF IN
solyency, II directly presented by the muni.
cipality. 40 conclude that such an avermeot
| Is true would be TO concede the insolvency of
al the property owners In the city, the COM
llainant among the number. Besides this,
there Is no avermeDt or pretence OF the tnsol-
yency OF the Commissioners as 1ndiv1duals.
For these reasons DO not think the ground OF
iTepaIable damage is sufficiently made out IN
The apprehended multiplicity of suits sue-
gested In the bill as likely TO occur from the of-
tempt OF the water takers generally to recover
back from the District Commissioners the IN.
creased rent charged for the current six months,
is not ground upon which this complainant
can invoke the aid Of this court, since only ono
OF the suits OF which he speaks would be Q iC-
cerned. But the new rates are to continue I'm
force until otherwise ordered by the board and
might continue as long as the previous rates
Of the matter there might be a constantly ne.
curing necessity upon the complainant co re-
sort to actions against the Commissioners.
and ne case 81 Sesdxs SeusSa vs. the City q Port
495, which was an application for an Injunction
to restrain the authorities OF the city from o.,
Letting - tax x to pay the coupons upon bonds
that the charge OF an apprehended mulupnCify
OF suits could not be sustained II the hW
dlsunctly required the payment OF the coupons
Intervals as long as the BONDS might rcmsiS
unpaid the recovery back by the tAx-poycr-
would require q multiplicity OF suits afiS-
time; that there could be no legal pre-emption:
That the complainant would sell hts properly
and thus free himself from the tax for the
this period. The same reasoning would apniy
to the present case, and II the tax were shown
10 De Illegally established think the ground OF
voked successfully BY the complainant.
t low becomes necessary TO inquire as % TIE
alleged Hegdlity OF the rates, and thus "a haaed
FIRST 1t is Insisted that the District Commis.
sloners mad no authority TO apportton the rates-
solely according TO the assessed Values OF the
houses, but that this element In the apportlon-
ment could only be adopted In connection with
all, or at least with soHne OF the other "dGtsn
enumerated In section 10, as SIZE uses of houoos.
number OF occupants, &C. The act OF Congress
which conferred the original power OF eSta6l1ah.
ing water rates upon the authorities OF Washing.
ton city was passed In May, 1859. As placed IA
the Revised Statutes OF the District It reads g
follows: THE legislative assembly has authority
TO establish scale OF annual rates for the sun
ply and use OF the water apportioned to diner.
ent classes OF buildings, according TO their stze.
oimensions assessed values, exposure TO flros
uses Tor dwellings,, stores, shops, stables.
manufacturing or other purposes number OF
occupants, or consumption OF water measured
by meter or otherwise, and to modify, alter
amend, Increase or reduce such scale, from time
TO time, and extend IL to other descriptions al
buildings and establishments; and to provide
for the collection Of such rates, In advance or
otherwise, from the owner or occupant OF All
buildings or establishments using the water: TO
provide for stopping the supply OF water to any
dwelling or establishment upon failure to pay
the rate, and generally TO enact such laws as
may oe necessary TO supply the Inhabitants OF
washington and Georgetown with pure and
wholesome water, and TO carry into fun elect
the provisions or this chapter,
BY the act OF Congress Of 10th June, lS79 sll
the powers, duties and limitations belonging to
the Legislative Assembly under the Revised
Statutes In respect OF the water supply arc
devolyed upon the District COMMISSIONER with
the additional provision, then first expressed IN
words, that the water rates should be uniform
Ia the District. In my opinion this section does
not require the Commissioners, In establishfn1
n NaH &c "a -AAA~