The Evening critic., 1883-05-04
SUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT
BY the Alexandria Canal Railroad e.
Bridge COmpauy.


Mr.. II. II. Wells, as solicitor for tho Alex
andria Canal Railroad 6 Bridge Company,
to-day instituted chancery suit against
the District of Columbia and John +. Cook,
Collector of Taxes. After setting out the
incorporation of the company the bill goes
on to state that the Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal Company under its charter construct
cd and operated canal from Savage Creek
to the Potomac River at Georgetown, and
the Alexandria company afterward carried
it across the river and on to Alexandria, Va.
BY act of the General Assembly Of Virginia
February 10, 1866, the Alexandria Canal
Company, the Board of Public. Works of the
State of Virginia and Corporation Of Alex
andria, Va, were authorized to lease the
Alexandria Canal for q period of ninety
nine years, and on May 49, 1865, it was
leased unto Henry ii. Wells, Philip
Quigley and W. DUNCAN and the lease was
subsequently-confrmed by the General As
sembly ofVirginia, and on April IL, 1867,
the lessees were authorized and
empowered to build and main
tain across the Potomac River, upon
and over the stone piers upon which the
canal aqueduct rested, a new aqucduct. of
wood, iron or stone, and also in connection
Herewith bridge of the same material
for the passage of persons, wagons and ami
mails. On July 81 1868, Congress, by an
act granted the lessees similar power, and
when the bridge was completed authorized
the collecting and receiving Of toll. From
the date when the Alexandria Canal was
built and first went into operation until
1874, period of 80 years, no tax was ever
assessed or collected by this District or the
corporations Of Washington and George
town on the property, but 1t
was admitted and recognized
as exempt from taxation. In 1874
| the District demanded tax, and the col
| lector was directed to levy and collect n tax
| and to sell the property as delinquent for
non-payment. This pretension was after
| ward declared by the Supreme Court of this
| District null and void. The complainant
| charges that the District and Mr.. John f.
| Cook, the collector, on July 30, 1881, again
| claimed and attempted to exercise the right
to assess and collect a tax upon the bridge
| property, alleging that it was In Washing
ton County, giving no location, but describ-
ing the same as value Of improvements
one hundred thousand dollars" The COM
| plainants protested against the assessment
and declared that the defendant neither
owned nor occupied real estate in the Dis
trict, but if the purpose was to tax the
franchise to take tolls, then they objected
that the assessment was illegal. They be-
lieve that their appeal was never acted
upon, but that Mr.. Robert p. Dodge, treas
| uler, Duu nOu one OF pue acSeSSOrS, pcr5Ou-
ally, from his own knowledge, cut the as
sessment down to $4,000. In 1882 the
District made assessment for the year end
ing June 80, 1883, and on March %, 1888,
made third assessment, without
authority of law, for tax on real estate for
the year ending June 30, 1881. 1t is further
stated that no appraisal of the property was
ever made as required by law, and that
each of the taxes alleged to have been as
sessed were illegal and not authorized by
law. 1t is also stated that the complainant
never heard or knew of the last assessment
until few days before filing its bill of
complaint. 1t is also claimed that the pre-
tended sale of the bridge, for the non-pay-
ment of taxes, is a cloud and incumbrance
upon its title, and that the sale which the
District threatens to make under the second
and third assessment is contrary to
equity and would work irreparable
injury to the complainants They therefore
pray that writ of injunction to issue
against the defendants restraining them
from setting up or asserting title under the
pretended sale, or attempting to take and
hold possession of the property, and that
they be epjoined from making further levy
| or sale.