St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-05-02
Evangelist Munhall Is Still
Keeping Up His Work Be-
fore Large Audiences.
The Ancient Order Of United
Workmen Meet in An
nual Session.
Summary Of the Doings of
One Day Gathered From
All Sources.
NOW LAY THE DUST.

The Supreme Court Holds That
SprinkIing Is Local Improve
ment.
The supreme court yesterday said that
street sprinkling is a local improve
ment within the meaning of the law,
and so there is no legal obstacle to lay
ing the dust in st. Paul as it was last
year. Judge Brill's decision that sprink-
ling was illegal under last year. system
is reversed. Judge Mitchell passed in
The decision, and Judge Gilfllan took no
part in the case. Here is the important
part OF what the court says:
State of Minnesota, eX rel. Thomas
T.. Stateler. relatOr, vs.. George Refs,
City Treasurer, ct al, respondents.
Street sprinkling is local improve
menj within the meaning of section l,
article 9 of the constitution, for which
an asst ssment may be levied upon the
property fronting on the street in pro-
portion to its lineal feet frontage, with
out regard TO its cost valuation.
THE OPINION.
The principal question in the case is
whether Sprlnkling a street is local
Improvement within the meaning of
the above section. Ii it be an improve
ment al all, it cannot be, and indeed is
not. cOntroverted but that it is ,,''local;"
that is, that it is of eXceptive and spe-
cial benefit to the property fronting on
the street. While the public who travel
il are also benefited by having a street
srrinkled, yet it requires no argument
to show that those who reside or do bust
ness on it receive an exceptional and
special benefit from abating the nui-
Sance Of dust. which is source not only
of fopff o lint oil nf
pecuGiary injury to their household.
Sprinkling a street renders the property
Oh it more desirable, hence more valua-
bile for occupancy. The REALTORS main
contention is that it is not an improve
prOvemeut, as it lacks permanence; that
to constitute an improvement something
must remain to permanently enhance the
value. But, if permanence or durabil-
ity is to be the test, how long must the
beneficial result last in order to be an
Improvement? We are unable to see
any difference in principle between the
work Of stree Sprinkling, the results of
which, unless repeated, last but a day.
When pavement or sidewalk is worn
out the future value of the property is
not enhanced by it any more than it is
by Sprinkling when that ceases.
Neither do we see that it makes any
difference whether the substance APP
piled to the surface of the street is
wood, which has to be renewed every
few years, or water, which has to be APP
piled daily. Each benefits the adjacent
property so long as it lasts and no
longer. 1t is not the agency, but the
result accomplished, which determines
whether work is an improvement in
the sense the word is used here. If
street Sprinkling renders property more
attractive and comfortable, hence more
valuable, then it is an Improvement
That it has this effect is common knowI-
edge. The word improvement may be
construed III many ways, but that il is
used in this section in the broader
sense, is evident. In the absence OF any
constitutional prohibition
THE POWER OF TAXATION
by special assessments is undOubted.
Such taxes are levied on the assumption
that portion of the community IS to be
specially benefited in the enhancement
Of property peculiarly situated as re-
CARDS the contemplated expenditure of
public money. This is the underlying
idea Of all such assessments. No decis-
Ion has ever attempted to enumerate
the purposes for which special assess
mentS might be levied, for the obvious
reason that it is impossible to do so. In
the absence of constitutional restriction
the only limitations upon the power of
the legislature to authorize the levy of
special assessment are: First, it must
be levied for a public purpose, for the
power OF taxation can be exercised for
none other; and, second, the property
on which it is assessed must be pecul-
iarly and specially benefited blythe work
for which it is levied; third, that it must
be appOrtlQned according to some rea-
SOnable rule upon the basis of
benefits, aScertained or implied,
resulting to the property assessed
lnaSmuch as these benefits NAV not be,
and usually are not, distributed i'll pro-
portion to the cash value of the property
assessed, therefore, in accordance with
the underlying idea of all such assess
mentS, 1t was usually apportiOned either
upon the basis of benefits as ascertained
by commissioners or other such body, or
according to some definite standard fixed
upon by the legislature itself, as, for ex-
ample. according to street frontage in
the case OF street improvements, the
benefits of which might be fairly pre-
Sumed to diffuSe themselves along the
line of the street in a degree bearing
some proportion to frontage. There can
be no doubt that, in the absence of con-
Stitutional restriction, the legislature
has the power to order such an assess
ulclll. Inc rcldIOr makes Jne TURNER
point that even if street Sprinkling is a
local Improvement, the mode of appor-
tiOning it provided for by the act. (Spe-
cial Laws of 1857, chapter y is unequal
and unauthorized by the constitution.
His point is, that the act in que stion re-
QuireS that the entire cost of sprinkling
all the streets in the city should be in
cluded III one common assessment and
apportioned pro rata upon the lineal
feet OF all the property fronting upon
all the streets sprinkled, without regard
to the fact that one street might be
wider than another or so situated that
the sprnkling would cost much more or
much less than on other streets. 1t is
enough here 10 say that we do not think
that the act in question requires the as
seSsment to be made in this manner,
and it does not appear that any such
method was adopted in the present in
stance. Order reversed.
MITCHELL, j.
ANOTHER SYLLABUS.
Lester Welter and Call Mcclellan, re-
spond9nts, VS.. S. 2. Nakken, appel
liant.
Syllabus-An appeal from a judgment
of justice of the peace upon both law
and fact brings up the case before the
appellate court for trial de novo, upon