Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-08-14

this language eff the right to maintain such
hoIders residing e or holding property Within
the limits Of municipal corporation, would be
without an adequate remedy to prevent the
from the unauthorized or illegal acts OF the
agents.
an Injunction was granted to prevent the city
authorities from cutting OF the supply OF water
from the premises Of the complainant, who in
the use Of the water was in EXCESS " of the iU
amount allowed by law, without any allega-
ton OF irreparable damage, multiplicity Of suits
or cloud upon his title.
The apparent inconsistency OF these decisions
with the declaration In Dons Vs. Chicago, is ex-
plaihed IN High on Injunctions, 3e9, where the
nation that Courts OF Equity have been inclined
IN the cases OF assessments by municipal cor
pordfaons to relax somewhat the stringency OF
the rule OF non-1nterference as applied to the
collection OF state taxes" Thus q city assess.
ment without authority OF law Will be enioined,
even where no question as to cloud upon title
Is raised" and the author cites in these words
the case OF roster vs.. kenoSha, - Wise, GIG,
"Whe1e city has attempted under a prOvi-
slon OF It's charter to levy tax for subscription
10 tne SUCK or railroad, the relief has been
granteo on the ground that the provision relied
upon was unconstitutional and the tax there
fore unauthorized
In later case, the state railroad cases, g
Otto, Glib, the Supreme Court, after reiteratfng
tne general principle announced In DonS VS..
Chicago, says: Whether the same rigid rule
should be applied to taxes levied by counties,
t0tn @n and e. Gaes we need not here inquire
Ing that the control OF the court, In the exercise
or power over private property by these corpo-
ratlonS Is more necessary and Is unaccompanied
by many OF the evils that belong to it when
affecting the revenues of the state' And the
above section OF High on Injunctions is cited
by the court to sustain this qualification OF the
The reason assigned by the court for RESTRICT
Ing the power to interfere with the collection
81 taxes, applies more especially to taxes levied
Dy the sovereign power In support OF the Oper-
atoms Of the government 10 virtue of its in
herent right Of taxation.
These reasons cannot be operative where the
rate sought to be eDjoined is assessed By a mu-
nicipality, the creature Of that sovereign. whose
revenues constitute no part OF the means OF
support OF the government itself, and which
acts ny no inherent right Of legislation bat
solely by delegated authority.
rms distinction Is recognized In Worth VS..
Fayetteyille, Winston North Carolina,, Law
and Equity Rep, lNo 2, p 10 where the court
tanned to enjoin the collection OF state or
county taxes, assumed the jurisdiction to test
the legality OF tax levied by municipal cor
poration. He quotes to the same efect Judge
DILLON: "Basrd upon such considerations it has
been decided that one or more taxpayers, with
out showing any other injury than that which
th ny VIII suffer in common with other property
restrain the allowance and payment Of an
Illegal claim, or the collection Of a tax for un-
aatnorlzed OBJECTS. such as for example, to pay
the expenses OF a railway survey which
there was no power to make or to refund to in
ulviduais money voluntarily contributed by
t tnem lor the purpose Of avoiding draft in the
toWn." In view OF this qualification In % Otto
oy the supreme Court Of the general language
ID Dons v. Chicago, and the tendency OF the
later cases, / think the Jurisdiction, on the
gro o. OF liiegahty OF the tax alone, may be
Especially would this principle apply where
the rate, as In this case is no part of the ordi-
the price fixed for water. Ike the rate CHARGED
for gas to the citizens, but which happens in
this case to be collectable by the District Com
mlssloners, instead OF by private corporation
AunOugn, therefore, court OF equity would
be more ready to en1o1n the collection OF an lille
gal tax by municipality, where its interposi-
tlon Is sought upon the additional ground OF
pretended multiplicity OF suits, vet it seems to
me but proper It should also intervene 10 the
ABSENCE OF such allegations, where 1T clearly
exact taxes from the citizens In manner not
authorized by law.
In the case at bar it is admitted that there
may be some $4,000 citizens liable to pay the
neW rates. This vast number Of people who are
substantially the owners OF the city over whose
government the Commissioners have been
placed, must either pay the rates which this
for this year and trust to suit against the
commissioners for reimbursement Or be de.
prlved OF the use OF the Potomac water, now
enectlvely the only source Of supply OF al artt-
health. ~ '--o''
For court of equity to decline to interfere
un0er tnese circumstances might be to subject
2 great NUMBER OF people to this serious de-
strucuon OF their comfort, or to the necessity OF
paying the illegal charge. Citizens paying the
Illegal rate would either submit In silence to
the trouble and cast of a lawsuit, or they would
bring separate actions to recover back the
amounts paid, which would be to convert the
indeed be that court OF equity should witness
such scene transacted from day to day In a
great city, and with folded hands refuse relief
to the thousands of its INHABITANTS, Sufferers
from an exaction which the court itself has de-
clared to be clearly contrary to law, because
there may exist technical right TO bring an
action at law where the cost OF success would
prove rather an aggrayatton Of the original H.
jury and an encouragement Of that unity OF
action abhorred by court of equity, or because
the claim for relief for such an exceptional
wrong could not be exactly formulat ed under
the ordinary ground OF equitable relief? 1t
caLnot be that the arm OF an equity tribunal
should be SO paralyzed by technical rules that 1t
cially demanding its prompt interference Aud
there would seem to be peculiar reasons why
such power OF equitable interposit1on should
the citizens OF this District, who are placed by
law IN situation at once anomalous and help
less, because deprived Of the usual agencies OF
sef-gOVernment universally found existing
elsewhere In all American communities.
Upon the principles OF this opinion the court
VII! pass an order overruling the demurrer filed
by the DEFENDANTS and requiring them to an
swer the bill; and will also order an Injunction
10 issue as prayed restraining the defendants
from demanding or collecting from the com
plalnant The account for water-rents described
III the bill, or any other water-rents according
TO the new schedule for any part of the wear
1919, until the further order OF the court.
In conformity with the spirit Of the rule laid
down by the supreme court In cases OF app.ca-
ton for fDjunctOns to restrain the collection OF
taxes claimed TO be illegal, the issuing OF the
lnJunctlon shall be conditional upon the promp.
payment by the complainant OF all water-rents
chargeaDle Tor the year 1872 according to the
former schedule Of rates In force on January /.
1879.
THE BRANDT-FLEITH OUTRAGE CAsE-The
nearing on habeaS corpus OF Herman Brandt,
conflned In Jail On six months sentence by
tne POllce Court for an indecent assault on
Emma Fleith, g seyen-year-old child was ra-
sumed before Judge James, at Chambers, this
morning, and number OF witnesses were
heard. The judge reduced the bail to 5000 for
his appearance In the Criminal Court.
LETTERS FROM THH PEOPLE.
That Pebble Walk.
Editor of the Stdr:-AmOng the HindOOj the
penalty beyond the grave for certain wrong