Evening journal., 1891-05-30
NEWSPAPER OPINION.
The Right OF the People 90 the Streets
Baltimore Sun.

The Right of the People 90 the Streets. /
Baltimore Sun.
In considering the question of the equit- |
able disposition or apportionment OF the
cost Of repsving the public streets, ~
between the general public and the own
ers OF property abutting on the particular
streets required or ordered to be paved, |
II must be borne In mind that the burden
OF keeping the highways In proper repair
and In ft condition for use and travel
primarily rests upon the public
Whether In town or country, 1t rests not
upon the people who live or own property
along the line of the highway, but upon
the municipality, city, township or
county within whose corporate limits the
portion Of the highway needing care or
repair may happen TO lie The mayor
and City Council OF Baltimore have.
therefore. no inherent right. no right by
virtue of any general principle Of law or
/ equity to shift any portion OF this burden
/ which Is common to the whole community,
upon the shoulders''of any par icular class
or portion Of the community This pr.n
ciple is fully recognized so far as provid.
ing and paying for repairs strictly SO
called IN the streets aud highways Is con
cerned The cost OF such repairs Is COM
monty betrayed out Of the general levy
that 10 to say, II is borne by the public al
large
II is only by virtue Of a special provi
sion to that effsct In the city charter tina,
the mayov and City Council are author
lied to provide by ordinance, general OF
special, for assessing the cost Of grading
or paving, shelling gravellng or curbiug,
or regarding, repaving reshelling, regray
cling, or recurbing any street, lane OF
alley In this city, in whole or part, pre-
rata, upon the property binding on such
street. lane or alley. 1t Is not only 9
special statutory power, bat recent de-
cisina OF the Court OF Appeals, after much
conflict OF previous decisions has definite
ly determined that this power OF assess
ing upon particular property the cost o
paving or repavlng pRDlic street, Is 81
much In the nature OF taking of private
proper ty for public use that 10 order &
be constitutional and valid its exercia
muet be preceded aud accompanied by tn
same formalities as TO notice. .opportunlt.
OF being heard, etc. en- the part OF th
owners of the property liable 20 assess
ment, rs are required la the case Of open
} ing and condemning a street The lega
assum mption seems 10 be that the repavinl
Is for the public beasht, and TO Justify
} local assessment the same rules aud con
' ditions must be observed es in any othe
case Of taking private property for th
J public use.
Q II Is preposterous, therefore, to say 0
to lay down a universal rule that street
ought only to be repaved at the expens'
in whole or part Of the owners Of sbut
ting property. So far from reeognizin
any such inhsxlble rule the Legislator
7 has expressly clothed the mayor and CT
: Council with the largest discretion in u
= matter. and In granting the power
sIoeial aud local assessment, whiC
Y otherwise the city would not possess b.
= left II optional and discretionary with q
y City Council 10 say when and whore al
y to what extent that power Of assssame
7 shall be exercised The two-thirds rul
as IL is called-the practice Of assessor
D. two thirds OF the cost OF repaying up
Dy property on the line Of the street, the ci
v, at large paving the other one-third-is
k rule OF convenience merely. voluntar
5 adop' cd, and only binding 80 far and
et long q he City Council choose to apI
o H.. Should the City Council choose, In a
particular case, 70 adopt or apply din