Daily Yellowstone journal. [volume] (Miles City, Mont.) 1882-1893, 1888-05-05
IMPORTANT DECISION
Minnesota's Supreme Court
Rules Street Sprinkling a
LocalImprovement.
Miles City's Council will Un-
doubtedly Take Steps to
Make it Such.
A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT.


in the Meaning of the Law as Building
sidewalks, lite.
The yexed question Cf the right of
city to levy special assessments Tor
the purpose Of spriukiing streets has
NJ last been decided by the supreme
court OF Minnesota. The lower court
declared II unconstitutional aud up
held the defendants in u suit brought
by the city Of 81. Paul for the collec.
tIon OF such special tax. Justice
Mitchell reversed that decision.
AT the meeting vi Tue Guy council oil
Miles CITY tonight this question will
be brought up and as il is particularly
advisable that tie streets De sprinkled,
the bearing OF this Minnesota decision
upon the point at issue may not he i'll
lImed. AS much Oi Judge MItehell's
decision rs bears npon street sprInk-
ling IN the natuGe Vi public improve
ment is gwen Ueluw:
state OF MInnesOla eX. rel. lhOs. X.
olateier, relaLUr, We. George Reis,
City IreasuIeII Z. al, respondents.
5y lIabus:
street sprlnkling Is u "locaI improve.
men" wItnin the nesuIng vi section
/, article 10, Ot Tie constitution, IUr
which an asaeeeinent may De levleu
upon The properly Ironing on the
IA 4. Tn
frontage, without regard 10 Its cash
valuation. O.uerreyersed.
MITCHELL, j.
The principal question la this case
Is whether spIinklIng stIeeI Is a local
Improvement wIlhIn the meanIng vi
section article 8, VI the constitution,
Tor which an assessp,ent may Ue levIeu
upon the property fronting upon the
street without regard 10 Us ca-u yalu.
alton. Ii II be an improvement AZ ali,
II cannot be, ana indeed is not contro-
yeTted but that 1t is 'local," that Is,
that II is OF exceptive and special ten
efit to the property fronting on the
street, while the public who travel II
are also benefited by having |. spridk.
led, yet il requires no argument to
show that those who reside or do busI-
ness on IL receive an exceptional and
special benefit from abating the nuIs-
auce of duet, which is q source not
only OF ditcomfort TO them but also of
actual pecunisry value 10 their house
hold goods or merchandise, Sprink-
ling street renders the property
fronting on IL more desirable, and
hence more valuable for occupancy, u
benefit not shared by other property
The REALTORS main contention, how
ever, is that street sprinkling is not an
improvement within the meaning of
this section OF the constitution, be-
cause IL lacks the element of perma-
neDce; that its results are transient;
that TO constitute an improvement
there must be some work or structure,
such as pavement, sidewalk or the
| like, that will remain sfter the labor
Is performed, and permanently en-
hance the value of the property. But
if permpence or durability is to be the
test, how long must the beneficial re-.
suits last in order 10 he an improve.
ment. II certainly will not be claimed
that il must be eternal In duration or
unperishable in character. We are
unable 10 see any difference In princi-
pie between the work of street sprink-
ling, the results of which, unless re-
peated, last but day, and the con-
struction Of block pavement or
wooden sidewalk which wear out or
decay and have 10 be rebuilt every
few ears. When pavement or side.
| IN Ia me- M kA faat. al ~
the property Is not enhanced by ii any
more than lt is by street sprinkling
when that ceases. Neither do We see
that it makes any difference whether
the substance applied TO the surface OF
the street IL wood which has TO he re.
newed every few years or water which
has to be applied daily. Each benefits
the adjacent property rs long as IL
lasts and no longer. It Is not the
agency used or its comparative dura.
biiity, but the result accomplished
which must determine whether q
work is an improvement in the sense
In which that word Ia here used. The
only essential elements of a "local Inn
provemeDt and those which the
term itself implies that IL shall benefit
the property on which the cost Is as
sessed In manner local In it's nature
and not enjoyed by property generally
IN the city. III IL does this. rendering
the prG perty more attractive and COM
Portable, and hence more valuable for
use; then IL Is an improvement. That
the regular aud systematic sprinkling
of n street has this effect upon the
property fronting on II il a matter Of
common knowledge. That
street sprinkling is public purpose IL
unquestlonsble; that property fronting
on the sprinkled street receives an ex
ceptonal local benefit from II IL, we
think, sufficiently apparent from what
has been slready said; therefore there
can he no doubt that in the absence of
anything in the constitution 10 the
contrary, the Legislature would have
the right 10 authorize an assessment
for street sprinkllng to be apportioned
according to the frontage on the street.