The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-07-19
STREET PAVING.
a LIVE TOPIC TOUCHED UPON.
How Shall the Funds for its Pros cution
he Raised-A Compilation of De-
cisiOns of Supreme Court
Bearing on the Subject.

Our city is entering, to limited extent, |
on system of street pavements, based |
upon the general principle that property |
holders on each side of street |
shall pay The cost of paving
TO the centre thereof in front
of their respective lots. Streets being
for public convenience it has been held
by some that such tax was illegal; be-
cause, first, the State constitution re-
quires that taxation "shall be equal and
uniform;" and because, secondly, the
same instrument prohibits municipal
corporations like Dallas, Ii. e. having
over ten thousand inhabitants and n
special charter from the legislature
from levying q tax for any pur-
pose III any one year over two
and half per cent. of the assessed
value of the taxable property in the city.
The people interested should be well in
formed on a subject so important and so
directly affecting them. Having, for
want of information, entertained a
measure ofdOubt on the subject. | sought
knowledge, where, if found, it would be
authoritative, viz: in the decis
ions of the Supreme court
of the State. Not heinz
lawyer my opinion on such subjects
would go for little; but the language and
rulings of the supreme court are so clear
that any common-sense man may under
stand tnem, and, anxious that our peo-
pie may be in possession OF them, pre-
sent from series ofcases decided from
1879 to 1884, the following summary:
FIRST Case -Roundtree VS.. Galveston,
decided at Galveston term. 1875, (42 Tex
as Rep. y. 6l2) In this case the CITY of
galveston levied and assessed one-third
OF the cost OF grading and Smelling
street, on the lot of Roundtree, AUDITING
and fronting on the street, and brought
SUIT to enforce the collection. The char
ter OF the city then in force, and granted
III 1911, authorized such improvements
whenever voted by two-thirds of the
Aldermen, the lot holders on each side
70 pay one-third and the city one-third.
The supreme court, Chief Justice Moore
delivering the opinion, among other
things said: "That the authority for
making assessments for local impTove-
ments IS derivable from, and in exercise
OF, the taxing power and not that of
f thinr DOMAIN cannot, we
II, then, tins charge against
the appellant (Roundtree) for one third
OF the cost OF improving the street on
Wnlch ms lou fronts is 10 be regarded as
property tax within the meaning of the
constitution. IT must be held invalid. he
cause IT is not contemplated bvtbe char
ter authorizing it, and in fact is not sus-
ceptible, under the ordinance by which
III is made, of being assessed as a prop.
erty tax for general revenue. as reuuired
70 be by the constitution. We cannot
hesitate to say, however, that IL has
been so frequently decided, that there
can be no question that it is now clearly
settled by the great weight of authority
mat the constitutional provisions hay-
ing reference to taxes for general rove- |
nue., are not applicable to assessments
like this, for local improvements. I'm
discussing this subject it il said nv
Judge Cooley constitutional Limita- !
tons, page 49, that sin addition to these
eases, there are others where taxes ARE
levled directly on property, which are,
nevertheless, held not TO be within tho
constitutional provisions. Assessments
Tor the opening, making, improving or
repairing OF streets, the draining of
swamps, and the like local works, have
Deeh generally made upon property with
some reference TO the supposed benefits
which the property would receive there
FROM" "The constitution of California
requires, (says Judge Dillon, i'm NIuni-
cipal corporations, page 1872 that taxa
lion snail be equal ana uniform through
OUT the state, ana that all property i'm
the State shall be taxed in proportion To-
its value; still il is held that the word
taxation, as here used, refers TO the cen
eral taxes to defray the ordinary eX-
penses OF the State and its subordinate
local governments, and not to assess
ments for local Improvement. That
assessment, though a branch of the tax
ing power, need not necessarily be eX-
ercised on the adj valorem principle. but
the Legislature IS at liberty to adopt n
inherent basis of apportionnent, such as
frontage benehts received, or superficial
contents" $50 in Missouri, il il held
that assessments against adjacent own
ers for benefits received from opening
streets, &c., are q valid exercise of the
taxing power and do not controveue the
provisions of the constitution that an
property subject TO taxation shall lao
taxed in proportion to its value. Like
decisions have been made in Louisiana.
Kansas, Kentucky and many of the
other States"
Second Case-In the case Of Allen and
Wehty'seyeh others vs.. Galveston, de-
clded at the Galveston term, 1871. (5l
Texas Reports, page 3O2l the same prin-
rlpleS are affirmed, but the case was ln-
cided in favorof the lot holders, because
the assessments were not made. M rn-
gulred by the city charter, against enrb
lot but against each block sTli ihen nrn
rated between the lots simply n minis
sAerlal error uy the Assessor.
Third Case In the case of the CITY of
Galveston VS.. Heard, decided al the iial.
weston term, 1881, (ji Texas Reports, page
42J), the same powers arc conceded to
municipal corporations to compel lot
holders to pay for the construction of
sidewalks.
Fourth Case This was the case of 4.
II. Lufkin vs.. the City of Galveston. do
cided February u, iSSi, Us, TexaS Re
ports, page 5iB). 1t was TO compel pay
ment by Lufkin for paving the street I'm
front OF his homestead, Lufkin admit
ted that the work had been done hv the
city, and the assessment regularly made,
but contcnded that the homestead could
not be sold for special taxes. In decid-
ing the case, the Supreme court said:
"Ine Constitution, Art. IL, See. ~,
makes no difference between the home.
stead and any other real property as to
its liability 10 be sold for taxes
No. does it draw any
distinction between general and specinl
taxes 20 which IL may be subject. The
plain import of its terms il that IL IL nnt
protected from forced sale for lawful
taxes that may he due on It. This i'm.
strument 1.-THE constitution throws the
most ample protection around the home.
stead, In return II clearly intends that
II shall bear its just proportionate share
In the burdens imposed by the Govern
ment. 1t was intended To DO alikelinblr
as other real property 10 all taxes, state.
county or municipal, that could under
its restrictions be justly aud lawfully
lcid upon the real estate of citizen,M
Il 10 court cites approving V The ,asCs Of
galveston vs.. Heart; 81 icx. H., u. J2O.
Galveston VS.. Loonie, 81 Tex. r., p. 5i7;
Roundtreo vs.. Galveston, a. Tex. r., u,
6l2; Allen vs.. Galveston, 81 Tex. r., y.