Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-02-27
The Re-Assessment for the Fort Street
Sewer.

10 Lne EQlCOr Oh Iue OlODe'
Having been informed that the board OF
public works of this city was about to re-
assess real estate fronting on Fort street, for
the construction of sewer (the original as
sessment having been invalidated by the
courts), in behalf of others and myself,
made objection to the proposed assessment
The ground of the objection as specified in
writing and filed, was in substance, that the
"St Paul Street Railway company" had con-
structed permanent fixture upon the prop
erty proposed tokbe assessed, by the imbed
ding of sleepers in the ground and afixing
rails of iron thereupon, and have been and are
operating two tracks over the property; thai
inasmuch as the realty belonging to this cor
poration was exempted from the proposed as
sessment, it was partial, irregular and invalid
A hearingof the objections was fixed for
Feb. 3rd, Mr.. Murray and appearing. My
views in support of the objections with sus-
tanning authorities were presented. The city
attorney thereupon requested an adjournment
of one week to prepare an argument in answer
This was acquieseed in with the understan-
ding that if any engagements otherwhere dis
able me from being present on the adjourned
day, the hearing should be further postponed.
On the 10th inst. my attendance at the trial
of Judge Cox compelled the courtesy of an
other adjournment, which was granted.
On the 18th inst, the city attorney and l
appeared. The matter being called up in it's
order, Mr.. Murray stated that the adjourn
ment of the subject had been allowed to hear
me IN support of the objections. To this sug-
gestion I of course made answer of the facts.
Mr. Murray stated that he had no argument
to make. The president of the board an
nonnced that the matter would be taken under
advisement. On the Oath inst, the objections
were overruled. Upon inquiry for the reasons
supporting the decision l was unofficially in
formed that individual members of the board
had consulted the city attorney in the prem
Uses and were advised by him that the COM
mon council having directed tie reassessment
the board had no alternative but to make it.
If this was SO, both courtesy and justice en-
titled me to hearing. DO not profess much
familiarity with that wonderful product of
legislation yclept the "City Charter" but
venture to assert that the council have no
power to direct an illegal assessment
II there was doubt as to the power to include
the street railway in the property to be
assessed, it would appear to be sound discre-
ton to impose the burden OF the appeal upon
the corporation.
do not communicate this to the public at
my own instance entirely, but upon the sug-
gestion of large number of property owners
upon Fort and other streets, where local i'm
provements of this and similar character are
either progressing or cOntemp lated-such as
the pavement of streets, and the like.
The questions raised are not new. For eX-
ample: I referred the board to the case of the
City of New Haven VS.. Farhaven u Westfeld
railroad company, 3S Conn.,, p. 422.
Found also in 9th American reports. pp.,
mr. ic fbo
city assessed about one-third of the cost of
paving Chapel street, between Union and East
streets, with Belgian pavement upon the de-
PENDANT, a corporation owning and operating
a horse railroad through certain streets of the
city, and among others Chapel street. The
corporation objected to the assessment. l.
was conceded that the assessment was regular
in form. In deciding that the assessment was
valid the court quotes from the city charter as
vol. 5, page 1862 after authorizing
the court OF common council to order certain
improvements, including the one now under
consideration provides that said court t'may,
upon the execution of any such order, assess
upon the persons whose property is especially
benefited thereby, proportional reasonable
part of the expense thereof, and may estimate
the amount of such expense to be paid by
such person.
zine word property" as used In the
act, is broad enough to embrace at least some
of the property owned by the defendant, so
that perhaps it is unnecessary for us to con-
slider whether the mere franchise is or is not
liable to assessment. The defendants proper
ty consists in part of rails, sleepers, ties and
spikes, so laid into and attached to the soil in
the street where the Improvement was made,
as to become part of the realty. That
property so situated is real es-
tate, has been repeatedly decided.
Providence Ga, Co. VS.. Thurber, 2 r. l., 81;
City OF Chicago VS.. Baer, Al Ills, 500; Appeal
of North Beach & Minion R. r. Co., 80 CAL,
469; Farmers Loan & Trust Co. VS.. Hendrick-
son, IS Rarb., 494.
We entertain no doubt that this ought to
be regarded as real estate and as such liable to
be assessed like any other real estate especially
benefited. Yours truly,