The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-05-08
STREET SPRINKLING.

In our issue Of the I'd, we discussed the
street sprinkling question to some extent,
holding that the levy of local taxes for the
purpose was unjust and negotiable, the
same rate per front foot being levied on
property of small value far from business
centers as was levied upon business prop
erty OF great value and centrally located
We now propose to discuss the question
from legal standpoint, and attempt to
demonstrate that the city council has no
power to levy the tax upon AUDITING prop
erty, but if street sprinkling is to be done
by the city, it must be paid for out of the
contingent or general fund Of the city
treasury. Municipal corporations in this
country must be created by statute, and
they possess no powers not conferred upon
them, either expressly or by fair
implication, by the law which creates them
or by other statutes applicable to them.
The powers of the city council of Salt
Lake are defined, to large extent, by ''An
act providing for the incorporation of
cities" passed March s, 1883. BY that act.
the council is given the power Ito provide
Tor the lighting, sprinkling and cleansing
OF Streets"
This is one of the ninety general grants
OF power. and while it may be exercised,
the cost OF such exercise must be defrayed
by general taxation, and cannot be met by
local assessments. 1t would be as reason
able to levy local assessment on holders
OF aouttlng properties, to control the water
courses leading to the city, as to assess
abutting property holders for sprink ling
streets. There is no grant of power to do
Sc, and any attempt OF the part of
the city council to levy such local tax
Is absolutely void. The city council
is authorized by the acts of March s, 1888.
and of March b, 1890, to levy local assess
ments for constructing sewers, drains.
waterworks, laying pipes and mains for
water and gas, and for laying out, estab-
fishing, operating, altering, extending,
widening. paving, curling and guttering
streets and constructing sidewalks thereon
and Tor those purposes may levy and col
lect special taxes and assessments upon the
blocks, lots or parts thereof adjacent or
abutting upon the streets to be SO i'm
proved. These special taxes can only be
$1,000 oaoSh lhO VI DOSlUlVC
statutory law. The measure of power
when authorized, and the mode of it's
exercise, must be sought for in the statute
creating the municipal corporation, or by
some law comforting upon it the powers
to be exercised. This is correct
statement of the doctrine as to the
extent of such taxation, and any attempt
to go further would be ultra ufres and there
fore void. Where, then, does the city coun-
Gil get the power to levy local assessments
for street sprinkling?
1t is to be assumed that the legislature.
IN comforting the power upon the corpor-
alton to levy local assessments, stated
clearly the extent of that power and left
nothing to be implied, upon the legal
maxim ''that the expression of one thing
is the exclusion of all others" We repeat
as in our former article on this subject.
that this unjust, unequal and Ubiquitous tax
should be and can be successfully resisted
IN the courts, and we hope that the citi-
zens whom the council is trying to rob will
take the necessary steps to defend them
selves.