The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-07-24

4 Live ropo TOUCHED UPON.



un a sy7to % o' stree. iarcm,ui., based
ti,ou tho sutrl. pr1"plr That property
luddI, ur cash clio ui q street
shall pay tnr rr't 0t paving
10 the rcntro thereof IN 'front.'
at their respective lots, Streets mrinr
for puddle convenience IL has been kcld
o. sOn,o that such tax was lllesali lee
cause, first, the state constitution re-
\ 1uiros thai taxation "sha!l ho equal and
unllurn;" aud because, secondly, the
same mslrgmant prohibits municipal
mpomiiops l'Eo Dallas, Il, q, having
lvor ton lhuuS1ni Inhabitants ani a
pecial chultor from che io-l,luturs,l
rom loVy'ng a tax ior any pur-
usu In any one year over Two
,And u half per cent, of the assessed
Value of the taxable property IN the CITY,
The people Interested should be well in
formed ON q subject 50 important aud So
directly affecting them. Having. for
want OF information, entertained u
measure ofdoubt on the subject, sought
knowledge, where, II found, II would he
Authoritative, viz: In tho deciS-
of the State. Not being
lawyer my opinion on such subjects
would 90 Tor little; but the language and
t.aiiilaN tl lltf ,NNllItlllt arc 81 tlthl
thul ANY ,unlmOn-scnsc man may under
stand them, Wui, anxious that our pcO-
plu may bC Ia possession OF them, pre-
sent from a series ofcascs decided from
80 to ISL, the following summary:
First Case -Roundtrco VS.. Galveston,
decided ~ galveston term, 1870, (l2 Tex
81 Rep, y, bl2.l In inis case the city of
Galveston levied and assessed onc-third
al the cost 81 grading aud Smelling
street, CA tlo lot al Ruunltrcc, Hhu,lmg
aud fronting oN o., street, 1ni IrouEht
Sui. 10 enforce the collection, Tine thar
der of the si.y ;Avn ia force, and granted
IN ISL, authorized surh improvements,
whenever voted hy iwu-iElrds of the
Aldermen, the lot hol lcrH uu zach side
Ia pay onc-third and the v:Iy uuC.third.
The Supreme court, thief Justice Moore
delivering the opinion, among other
things said: "rhat the authority for
making assessments for local improve
ments Is derivable from, and in exercise
of the taxing power and not that of
eminent domain, cannot, we
II, then, this charge against
The appellant Qioundtrce) Tor one third
.of the cost OF improving the street on
which his lot fronts Is to hc regarded rs
apioperty tax within the meaning u The
constitution. il must he held invalid, be-
,causc 1t is not contemplated by the char
Ter authorizing IL, and IL fact is not SuS-
Veptiblc, under the ,itdinanCc by which
il j. made, Of teing assessed ~ u prop
erty tax Tor general revenue, as required
10 De ~ the constitution. We cannot
hesitate to say, however, that IL has
been so frequently decided, that thc!c
can he no question that it Is now clearly
settled py The great weight OF authority
that the constitutional prov iSionS hav-
ing reference to taxes for general revc-
Nlla, are n0t applicable To assessments
like this, for local improvements. In
hi -. !.
Judge Cooley constitutional LimiLa-
lions, page 100 that "in addition to those
cases, there are others where taxes are
levied directly or property, which are,
ncVerthe less, held not to be within the
constitutional! provisions. Assessments
toi the opening, making, Improving or
repairing OF streets, the draining OF
j sWamps, and the like local works, have
' becn generally made upon property with
sssolne reference To the supposed benefits
wiich, the properly woHia receive there
= requires, (says Judge Dillon, i'll Mum
. .ciyal Corporations, page 1919 that taxa
sion shall be equal and uniform through
out the State, and that all property in
the State shall be taxed in proportion to
its vaiuc; still it is held that the word
taxation, rs here used, refers to the gen
ert taxes to detray the ordinary eM-
pe,iSes OF the STATE and its subordinate
local governments, and not to assess
ucutS for iuru improvements. That
assessment, though II branch of the taN-
ing power, need .IOt necessarily be eN-
<srciacd on the ad valorcm principle, but
the Legislature is at Liberty to adopt Il
different basis .! HppOrtiOnnenJ, Sll"n as
frontage, benefits received, o. superficial
contents" $50 in Missouri, il is held
that assessments against adjacent own
srs for benefits received from opening
streets. ,yc., arc Il valid exercise OF the
taxing power, and do not cOntroveno the
provisions OF the constitution 'hrt ali
property subject TO taxation shall be
faxed in proportion to its Nal,1o. like
decisions have been made iii Louisiana,
Kansas, Kentucky and many OF the
other StHtes.'
Seconh Caso-In the case of Allen and
twcntY-seven others vs.. Galveston, de-
<iGed ut III" Galveston term, iSi", 81
Texas Reports, pa 80 3l2), the same prin
,cip!eS are atlr.ncd, but the case was do
cited in favor Of The lot holders, because
the assessments We're not made, as re-
CURED by the city charter against each
lot, but against each block and thOn pro
rated between the lots-snpiy minis
terIal error by the Assessor.
; Third Case--In the case Of the City of
Galveston vs.. Heard, decided ut the Gal
weston term, 1851, (5i Texas Reports, page
42Jl, the same powers are conceded to
municipal corporations to compel lot
ho .dcrs to pay tor the construction o!
Sidewalks.
Fourth Gase-This was the case Of 4.
z. Lu.,iin vs.. the City Of Galveston, de-
s.tt,d February Is, lSS3, (hS, Texas Re
u Its. pag3 $50. 1t WAS 10 compel pay
nGanttiy liIfkin for paving the street IN
front of BIS homestcad Lut'i>in admit
ted that the work had been done by the
cltE, and the assessrneEt regularly made,
-Rutcontonded that the homestead could
np!sa sold for special taxes. In decid
Tihg the case, rhe Supreme court said:
"fhe Constitution, Art. IL, Sec. 20.
makes no GiipronGe between the nome
Stead and any other real property as to
.ts liability to be sold for taxes
that may be duo on it.
Nor does it draw any
distinction between general and special
g taNes 10 which it may be subject. The
F,ti,in import OF it's terrus Is that it is not
A protected from forced sa!o for lawful
! Saxes that max be due on it. This in
sS.ruuent (the constitution throws the
most ample protection around the home
sleud. In return it clearly intends that
it shall bear its just proportionate share
in the burdens imposed by the Govern
ment. 1T was intended to be alike liable
J. as.D.her real property TO all taxes, State,
eo1nIy or. municipal, that could under
its restrictions be justly and lawfully
Laid upon the real estate of citizen"
.Taecourt cites approvingly the eases of
Galveston VS.. Heard; "a Tex. r., p. 40;
Galveston VS.. Doonle, 81 Tex. R., p. 5l7;
RoEndtree VS.. Galveston, II Tex. r., p.
ol2; Allen vs.. Galveston, 81 Tex. r., p.
3E.
Fifth Case-In the case of Galveston
vS. LtDnie (G Tex. r.. u. 5l7), the court