Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-03-29

! IHh0u. AS 10 Wn6Iner Jury or cOmm1S
sion is the better, you and 1 would prefer
the court to appoint three men, who are
especially qualified for that especial pur-
pose-the court having the whole city to
, select from-than any twelve mon drawn
from the jury box. This is the practice
that has always prevailed in this city, and
In most other cities of the state, and is a
better and a,fairer way in assessing values
of property than by jury. If this bill
should be defeated
THE SAME PROCESS CAN BE HAD
| in getting park, through the council, ex-
| cept that benefits could not be assessed.
Col. Benton regarded the assessment of
| benefits under the park bill as eminently
just and equitable. As to the point that
the commission can apportion the per
cent. of the benefits to be assessed, no
general rule could be laid down, because
some parks are worth more than others.
| The Central park in New York cost so
much that the abutting property would
not be benefited 10 per cent, but if we
| lay out small park of a block, the
adjacent property would be benefited to
| the full extent of the costs. No cast-iron
rule can be laid down. 1t shouldn't be
| that all the benefits should be assessed;
we shouldn't make it so per cent. because
that might be too small. We left it where
| it should be left,with the park commission.
Their election is with the people the same
| as the election of the council is, and 1
don't know of any city where there has
been less Objectionable legislation than in
Minneapolis, nor of a city which has been
kept in healthier financial state, and
QUE AZ PER CENT. BONDS SELL AT PAR.
They are as good as per cent. bonds
of most other cities. Indirectly, this
bill protects the right sof all property
owners in the matter of appeal. AS to the
notice to be given, it is not to be supposed
that unreasonable notice was given, for
then the whole proceeding could be set
set aside. No court would sustain it upon
an unreasonable notice. An unreasonable
notice is no notice at all. There is no
danger on this point. The law says the as
SCISSORS shall hear all evidence submitted,
and the court can reject, in whole or in
part, the work of the assessors. 1t is furth-
er the duty of the assessors to assess accord
ing to the benefits received, and if it is
shown that he has assessed too much the
COURT CANNOT APPROVE THE ASSESSMENT.
how much each lot is benefited, and if the
amount asked for by the commission ex-
ceeds the benefit to the property, the as
SCISSORS will be obliged to assess lesser
amount than the sum total. The supreme
court has held that under 10 law providing
for the assessment of "a just proportion"
can the assessment exceed the benefit.
The commission is to decide the per cent
L, / L.
general law that the amount assessed can
not exceed the benefits. If they did ex-
coed that, the court would send it back to
them. The assessor, if he believes the
amount claimed by the park commission
is unjust, has
THE POWER TO CUT IT DOWN,
and he can't do anything else under his
oath to assess a just proposition. The
powers of the commission are advisory on
one side. The city must abide by the per
cent. frst-named, but the assessor need
not. He can cut it down but cannot in
crease it. The park commission has power
to say what per cent. of the cost of park
the city shall pay; they cannot say posi-
lively what per cent. the property shall
pay. The assessor and the court have
power, if they set an exorbitant figure, to
cut 1t down. They simply say that it shall
not exceed the per cent. they name.
In reply to a question Col. Benton said
that if a park cost $4,000, and the COM
mission decided to assess $4,000 on the
property adjoining, and the assessor finds
that the property is not benefited only
$4,000, he can assess only that amount,
and the commission must either abandon
na Tha Z in
other way.
Being asked If the commission would
have power to revise its decision as to the
per cent. to be assessed, and decrease it
after the assessor had decided the amount
thought they would. They must either do
that or give up the park?
Col. Innes wanted to be Informed why
the commission had right to purchase
lands and
EXEMPT PROPERTY FROM ASSESSMENT.
Col. Benton explained that if they as
sessed too little in this way, they would
have to make it up out of the park fund
they couldn't make it up by assessing the
non-exempted property.
Judge Atwater said that Col. Benton had
explained about the requirement in one
case for the hearing of evidence, but had
not explained why in the other it was dis
cretionary-the word may being used.
Col. Benton said supreme court decis-
| ion was to the effect that may, in such cases
meant shall. But if it did not, and COM
| petent evidence was refused, that would be
a point for appeal to the court, and the
court would set aside the proceedings.
Judge Atwater thought that was assum-
| ing a good deal, the other proceedings be-
| ing legal. Hewanted to know further why
| the bill was not framed so as
NOT TO REQUIRE HIN TO GO TO THE EXPENSE
of going before the court.
| Col. Benton said it was copied, word for
word, from the city charter, on this point.
which was framed by the best lawyer 10 the
state of Minnesota Lochren.
Judge Atwater-My objection still
stands.
Col. Benton-Oh, well, that is only diff
ference of opinion.
Col. Benton further said DO injustice had
ever been done under this provision of the
charter, so far as he knew. He never
knew a commission to refuse testimony.
The usual trouble is they take too much.