The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-03-31
THE GEoUND RENT LOTS.


tsresting Points With Regard TO
Them.
Editor Horaiag NelUs: So many unjust
comments have been made upon the aclioa
of the city council in leyying taxes upon
that class of lots commonly called ''ground
rent" lots by parties who have no definite
knowledge of the facts leading to such
action, that deem it proper in myself, as
the leader of the movement, to unfold 10
the public the reasons for that movement.
When n citizen is elected as a membar of
council. on taking his Ofiics he swears to
obey the coasti ution and laws of the state
ard ordinances Of the city. He cannot set
up his private opinions, however sincere
ther may be. in defiance of the constitution
and laws. He must obey them. Among
these obligations, he finds the ordinance of
1878 taxing these lois. an ordinance which
successive councils have failed to enforce,
although the great body of the legal frater-
nifty of the city had given their opinions
that such lots were taxable. Let US look
into the history of this matter and see what
it viii unveil.
The ordinance Of 1870, providing for the
sale Of the Its distinctly declares that
"the deeds shall be deeds Of bargain and
sale. and shall Uest the title IN the pur-
ch1Ser.n 1t is very clear, therefore, that it
was never intended that the deeds should
be deeds Of IcGSehOids In the language of
the instrument the term ground rent" was
employed as convenient and brief syflo-
nym for Interest on the unpaid balance of
the purchase money! and the amount of
the so-callei ground rent was not deter
mined By the value of the lot, bat by the
amount of unpaid balance OF purchase
money-such ground rent being calculated
at rates of flee and subsequently, 6 per cent.
upon such unpaid balance.
THE DEEDS DECLARED DEEDS IN FEE
SIMPLE" BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CHATHAM COUNTY.
In 1908 the county of Chatham asserted
that not only was it intention to vest
the title of these lots ia The purchasers. but
that by the very language Of the deeds the
title ,DdS UeSted an the purchasers. The
case was that of Gibbons VS.. Gibbons" see
/. u. L. Charlton's reports, il which the
court went into most exhaustive review
of the subject, and rendered decision 50
complete and comprehensive that it has
never been appealed from since its declara-
ton eighty-two years ago. From that tins
to this the public have been on legal notice
as TO the nature of these Instruments; and
no amount of miscalling the lots, ground
rent" lots, changes in any degree the positive
character Of that legal notice. The as
sertiol made by some that they were deeds
in fee" so far as the county and state were
concerned, but only deeds of leasen in SO
far as the city was concerned, is too ridicu
lous for serious consideration.
Now. if they were deeds in fee, and the
title vested i'll the purchaser, then they
were necessarily private property and sub
ject to taxation. There Is no escape from
that conclusion.
WHO BROKE FAITH2
have often heard it said that this coun-
Gil, in assessing these lots for taxes, has
been guilty of bad faith which, in transac-
tions between individuals, would be regard
ed as s~indling. Let US see first as to the
moral justice Of the charge. The language
of the deed declares that when the city
re-enters, it (the city, shall como into o5So-
LWte possession Of the property us ats 0lUt
by such process of re-entry. But" said
the ground renters, that is not fair. We
admit that such was the contract, but we
don't think that is right. We don't think
that because we owe the city balance on
our purchase money the city ought to have
right to take our whole property" Now
| think that in this instance the sO-called
ground renters were right. ! don't think
the city ought 10 have such a plundering
privilege. And what happened?
THE CONTRACT DECLARED UNsoUND BY
THE SUPREME COURT AT THE INSTANCE
OF THE so-CALLED GROUND RENTERS.
The case was taken into the courts, and
the supreme court of Georgia declared that
so much OF the contract as gave the city
the right to take the property as ats o,Cr
by such re-entry WAS unsound and contrary
to good public policy; that when the city
re-entered upon any such property, it must
sell it, whether it wanted to or not: and
that the proceeds Of such sale, over and
above the balance and interest Tor ground
rent due on tho lot, must be given to the
owner of the lot" give the substance of
the decision.-L. A. T.
This decision has never been complained
of by the ground renters, as they are COM
monty called. The city got all it was en-
titled to in justice, and the city is satisfied
with the decision. But if the deed were
q lease would the gamer OF the los, that is,
the party who purchased from the city,
have been entitled TO any surplus over the
balance Of purchase money due the citvs
The RIGHTEOUSNESS of ell this talk about
lease holds" and ''city lots" is here again
shown. | have clearly shown above that
the owners of the lots were themselves
the ones who secured the breaking of the
contract. Any one who will read one OF
these deeds viii find that have given Its
language explicitly; and no one, lawyer or
other person, dares to question my charges
that the sO-cGiLed ground renters them
Setpe OfOhe the GOSOtEt3 lUritten letter OF
the contract as specifically expressed in the
deed itself. am not now speaking Of i'm
agnary constructions of its meaning; am
recting its unequivocsl stipulations.
Never, in ali my observations of public
affairs have ! seen q more apt illustration of
the story of the Frenchman and the Indian
when discussing the terms on which a tur-
key and a squirrel should be divided be-
tween them. Said the F'renchman to the
Indian: you take the squirrel and Til
take the turkey. or I'll take the turkey and
give you the squirrelr "Ughm sid the
Indian, "You no say turkey to me once!"
just so say the so-callad ground renters:
Its my lot waen it comes TO getting the
profits and emo!uments, but it's not my lot
when it comes TO paying taxesm
THE GOOD CONDUCT OF THE CITY IN
STARTLING CONTRAST WITH THAT OF
THE BREAKERS OF THE CONTRACT.
have presented above the true facts of
the breaking of the contract by the So
called ground renters: and | will now show
that though thedseds dOnot give exemp Jon
from taxation, the city council, in recogni-
ton of the fact that it has been the custom
for long years TO treat these lots with
special favor by not assessing them for
taxes, and that most Of the owners thereof
purchased them in the belief that such
special favor was an inherent right in the
property Itself, have made proposition
Tor settlement Of the balancs of purchase
Il. To