Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-01-04
The Special asscssment Deci>ious.
IMPORTANT POINTS.

Lately, in the supreme Court OF the United
/ States, the cases OF Mattingly, Kirk, Randall
/ ct al, agt. the District OF Columbia. aud the
! First National Bank Of New York agt. 4. {. p
Shoemaker-involying the validity OF the GER
tificates given for special improyementS-were
argued and de, ided The question is one OF
great Interest 10 property holders, and we
therefore print the fun text Of the decisions
me tol!oWing Is the opinion OF the court in
Justice Strong:
The facts Of this case appear in the bill. the
answer, anG the accompanying exhibits. SO far
as IL Is Necessary TO reState them now, they are
as 1oioWS:-In the year ISL the board of nubllr
works OF tie District OF Columbia. q board con-
stltuted under and by virtue OF the organic law
OF the District. caused to be constructed a sewer
IN aid along the line of Seventh street I'm the
cry OF Washington, extending from Virginia
avenue ih 10 The Potomac river. They also caused
etoneS g & ana SIDEWALKS TO be paved, and curb
stones AT the cutters TO be set. The work had
neen commenced by the corporation of WaS1-
lhgtcn before the board came into existence
ana contract had been made by the city with
george NJ. linyille to pave and construct n
sewer along that street: but the work had nor
peen completed, when Congress, by act an
proved fetiuary 90. 1oI1. Incorporated the Dis
tLlct, and provided for the existence of a hoard
OF puDlIc works The act declared the hoard
should EaVe entire control OF and make all rer-
iiatlolS winch lhey should deem necessary 70.
Keeping in repair the streets avenues alleys
ara sewers Of the city, and all other works
Nhich might be entrusted 10 their charge bv the
eleSs. UDder this authority the board. wrpn
organized, took charge OF the work ON Seventh
suett. continued LinYille as contractor caused
lHe sewer 10 be changed and ENLARGED and
contracted with Albert Gleason for nlvlnr the
SIDEWALKS and setting the curtstoneS After the
completion OF tie work they made an asses
Hohl Cf CEe-ihird OF IFS CCSi upon the property
adjoining, pIop0rloning ii Ia the frontage:
gave Notice OF Tie assessment To the properly y
o"Lels, AID the District was about T. proceed
IN tie collection OF the assessments when tai,
al - IA a. Ia rs
tensibly 10y authority OF the 31th section of the
organic &c5 OF the District. The clause of that
section con1erring the authority is as f1llo.yS.-
ILcy the board OF public works. shall Dis
burSe upon theii' warrant all moneys appropri-
stltd oy the nited states, or the District of o.
lulnba, or collected from property-hOldars for
TIE Improvement Of streets, avenues aleySand
sewers, ard roads and bridges. and shall assess
IN Sucn manner as shall bc prescribed by law.
upon the property adjoining and to be especial
~ peIeIttGd by the improvements, authorized
by law al1d made by them, a reasonable propOT-
ton OF the cost OF the improvement. not exceed
ing cnc-t hird OF such cost, which sum shall be-
collected as all other taxes are collected
The complainants are property holders along
Inc line OF Seventh street, adjoining that part
and where the curbStoneS and the paving were
laid. Their properties are some Of those upon
Which the board OF public works made an as
seSSfnent or one-third the cost OF the improve
ment, and they bring this their bin for an in
junction against the collection of the sums as
sessed, and against issuing certificates of in
seeks decree that the assessments are Illegal
and void, and an injunction upon the District
or the board OF public works. against making
any pay yment for the work done, and upon the
contractors against receiving payment
In support OF the prayer for such relief the
bill charges, lst, that the board was not author
ined Ea by law TO make the improvement along
seventh street; I'd, that no law existed at the
time when the assessments were made pre-
scrlplng the manner in which the board
should make assessments; Sd, that assessments
hp
authorized and illegal; and 4th, that in making
the assessment no part or the cost OF the i'm
proVement was charged upon SchOol-houSe and
church property, exempt by law from taxation
out that the whole OF the one-third OF the cost
was charged against the otner adjoining prop
eIty. There are other minor complaints OF the
assessment, not, however needful to be stated
They aSSaii only its regularity
we 90 mol propose 10 inquire whether the
charges OF the bill are well founded. Such an
Inquiry can have no bearing upon the case as
II now STANDS. For were Ii conceded that the
board of public works had no authority 10 d.
the work That was done at the time Wien Il
was done, and consequently no authority tn
make an assessment OF a part OF its cost uoon
TIE colnplalnantS' property, or TO assess in the
manner LII winch the assessment was made. the
CONCESSION would not dispose OF the case, or eS-
tabfsh that the cOmpanantS have a right to
The equitable relief for which they pray
There has been Congressional leg gisllti0n since
1872, the effect OF which upon the assessments
is controlling. There were also acts of the
legislative assembly OF the District which very
lUpll 4 continuation or the acts and
assessments or the board OF which the bill
complains. III Congress or the lie ylsiative as
Sembly had power to commit to the board the
duty OF making the Improvements, and the
power TO prescribe that the assessments should
be MADE in the manner In which they were
made, they had power TO ratify the acts which
they might have authorized. And the ratiflca-
ton, If made, was equivalent TO an original
authority, according to the maxim .'O6,nis ratio
hGOttto retro trdhitur, ct mandate lriOr eqlti pa
|dtur." Under the Constitution, Congress had
n lnrric clatT all
cases whatsoever over the District, and this In
cludeS the power Of taXation.-(COhen vs. Gfr-
e1Lia, " heat, 22+) Congress may legiSlate
within tie District, respecting the people and
property therein, as may the legislature OF any
state over any OF its subordinate munlcpalties.
IT may, therefore, cure irregularities. and con-
nlln proceedings which without the confirml-
ton would be void, because unauthorized. pro-
Nided such confirmation does not interfere With
intervening rights Judge Cooley, in view OF
tie authorities, asserts the following rule: ''If
the thing wanting, or which failed TO be done
and Which constitutes the defect in the pro-
ceeding, is something the necessity for which
the Legislature might have dispensed with by
prior statute, then ii is not beyond the power
OF the legislature TO dispense with il by subSe-
quent statute. And If the irregularity consists
III doing some act, or in the mode or manner OF
doing some act, which the legislature might
have made fmmaterial by prior law, il is
equally competent to make the same inmate
rial by subsequent law."-(Cooey'S ConSt.
Limitations, 3,1) This rule, we think, is accu-
rately stated.
Tle question Is. therefore, presented whether
the legislative assembly was empowered by the
organic law of the District TO commit TO the
board OF public works public improvements, to
make appropriations for them, and TO prescribe
the manner in which assessments should be
made, or whether Congress itself has confirmed
the assessments OF which the plaintiffs CON-
plain.
THERE'S much in the legislation OF the Dis
trict assembly which, If il does not show a di-
rect ratification OF what was done by the board
OF public works, at least exhibits an acquieS-
ceGce in it and an approval. BY a legislative
act Of the assembly passed May 29, 1873, after
the work had been done upon 9TH street. an act
for the purpose of extending the time for pay
ment OF the assessments, the board was author
lied to issue, and use in the discharge OF out
standing Obligations, certificates OF indebted
ness for work done under their direction, and
chargeable to the private property benefited
thereby. This included assessments for work
done or in progress under existing contracts,
and the act declared that such certificates
should be receivable in payment for assessments
for special improvements. The second section
Of the act directed all certificates thereafter is
sued TO be deposited with the commissioners OF
the sinking fund of the District, and pledged
them for the payment OF the prfncipnl and in
tereSt. The third section extended the time OF |
payment, and directed that upon default OF |
payment the property against which the as |
SeSSmentS and certificates existed should be |
sold; and the fourth section authorized and d. |
Iected the commissioners OF the sinking fund TO |