The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-22

'TT"TTT"TTTTT-TFNT Ut III
burden, regardless OF the fundamental
principle Oh equality and uniformity.
Can this be true under the Virginia con-
stitution? We think not.
Municipal corporations exercise by viz
tue OF their charters important legisla-
tive powers. They levy and collect taxes
for revenue for municipal purposes just as
the state levies and collects taxes FOR state
revenue. There Is no just ground for the
distinction, and our constitution forbids
any such unjust discrimination. The
doctrine OF local assessments proceeds
upon The false assumption that the aDut-
ting property is exclusively benefited
by the improvement FOR the creation OF
which the whole expense is assessed
against such property. The reasoning BY
by which this conclusion is arrived at is
unsound and wholly fails TO justify the
conclusion Itself.
by the provisions Of it's charter
extensive and most important leg
islatiye power Is I'm specific
terms attempted to be conferred
upon the municipal authorities Of Norfolk
city. IL would, however, seem too
plain for argument that the Legislature
itself had no such power, and could not,
therefore, confer it upon the municipal
authorities OF the said city. The power
is not only opposed TO the very letter Of
the constitution, but IS, in the nature OF
things, an extensive and dangerous pow
or. which the trainers OF the constitu-
ton would never have granted. except
in express terms and subject to such spe-
cihc restrictions az 10 securely guard the
citizens against the abuse.
Observation and experience teach us
that IN many Instances the councils of
cities and Incorporated towns are TO "A
large extent composed Of irresponsible
/ persons who own little or 40 property,
lave no just appreciation of the burdens
of taxation and are TOO liable TO be
swayed. Inconsciously Il may be. BY in
tcrcstcd or corrupt influences, adrOitly
brought to hear upon them. ana Induced
to CIDER public improvements, the eN-
pcusc OF which. il imposed upon the
abuttihg property owners, must neces-
sarlly result in ruinOus consequences 10
them.
THE constitution Of Virginia provides
that the General Assembly shall not pass
any law whereby private property shall
be taken for public uses without just
compensation. aud in view of the prOvis-
ions of the Code prescribing the mode or
cOnd emuing lands needed for such uses,
where the same cannot be acquired by
agreement with the owners, and eompar-
ing these provisions with the charter
VI lilt lily VI WI A0Ahf ~ va w N'"AtF
perceiv ed that said city was without amy
authority to make the assessment for
betterments here in question.
1.-The commissioners appointed 10 con
denim lSnds FOR public uses are directed
and required, after viewing the land and
hearing evidence, to ascertain what VIII
be a just compensation for such land ana
the damages to the residue Of the tract,
beyond the peculiar benefits to be derived
in respect to such residue, from the
work TO be constructed. The owner Is
entitled under the statute to receive a
lust compensation, in money, for the
value Of the land taken, without any set
off whatever. and to damages also 10
the residue of the tract beyond the pc
culiar benefits to be derived in respect
TO such residue from the improvements
These peculiar benefits may be set off
against such damages; but the d~iiIcrence,
If any, in favor Of the benefits, cannot
be set off against the value OF the land,
nor against the owner.
1T is. therefore. manifest that, under
the settled law Of this state, the value
of the land taken for public use cannot
be COMPENSATED TO the owner In benefits
to the residue Of the tract, but the COM
pensation-the fair value of the land at
the time-must be made In money.
after the condemnation proceedings, as
authorized by law, and after the land
owners along the line Of the proposed
Improvement had received the amounts
respectiN ely awarded them as just com
pensaticn. the council of the city of Nor
folk. with the avoWed purpose of replcn-
ishing it's treasury 10 the extent OF the
compensation paid to said landowners,
directed and had made an assessment for
betterments to the residue Of said prop
critics; and I'm this proceeding the appellee
here. who was one OF said landowners,
was assessed with the sum of 1880; thus
taking back from him under the spurious
pretext of imaginary peculiar BENEFITS
Detterments) not only the entire sum
Of 81. 200 awarded him as just cOmpensa-
ton for that portion Of his land actually
taken. but $500 in excess thereof. Is 1t
not difficult TO conceive a case of grosser
Injustice and oppression. or one more
palpably opposed TO both the letter and
spirit Of the Constitution n laws of
this Commonwealth?
IN proceeding to condemn that portion
of the appellee's land, which was taken
for public. use. the whole question OF
peculiar benefits. or betterments, TO the
residue of his lot was involved, and was
finally disposed of; and in that proceed
ing the city Of Norfolk received and APP
propYiated all that she was then or ever
can be. entitled to on the score of pecu-
liar benefits to the residue Of said prop
erty. The provision Of the statute is
mandatory, that the commissioners APP
pointed I'm condemnation proceedings
shall. after viewing the land and hearing
evidence, ascertain which will he a just
compensation. not only for the land
taken. but also for the damages 10 the
residue OF the tract. beyond the peculiar
benefits TO be derived IN respect to such
residue. from the works TO be con-
structed.
in the present case, the commissioners
reported that for the value of the land
Of the appellee taken, and for damages
TO the residue Of the tract, beyond the
peculiar benefits. he was entitled 10
$500 as Just compensation, and this
report was confirmed by the court and
the compensation thus ascertained was
paid to the appellee; but the city now
seeks TO take back this compensation
under the s@pecious plea Of an additional
special assessment for the betterments
to the residue OF said property. If the
city can make such second assessment
for peculiar benefits or betterments. II
may with equal propriety be repeated
an indefinite number of times, the result
OF which would be practical conftscation
and the sweeping away of the constitu-
tional guarantees of the rights OF prop
erty. But, for its authority 10 make
this second assessment for peculiar bene-
fits. the city relies on the 18th section
of its charter. which providesstha when
ever any street shall be laid out, etc,
the councils may determine what portion,
If any, Of the expense ought to be paid