Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-12-18
DECISIONS CONFLICT.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CASE
OF NORFOLK VS.. ctiAMBERLAlNs.
Previous Opinions Of the Court Involving
the Doctrine Now Passed Upon.
Views Of the Lawyers.

The decision OF the Supreme Court OF
Appeals in the case of Norfolk against
Chamberlaine. involving the right of q
municipality 20 tax abutting property
owners for street improvements. continues
70 be the chief topic Of conversation
among lawyers. II is the opinion of some
OF the leading members of the bar that the
court has not only abrogated the long
standing doctrine on the question. but has
distinctly antagonized its own record.
In the case OF the Richmond and Ale
ghany Railroad Company against the CITY
of Lynchbur9 (Eightv-frst virginia ke-
ports, Judge Lewis delivering the opinion,)
the present court held that the provisions
II the Constitution requiring taxation TO
be equal and uniform, and that all property
shall be taxed in proportion 70 Its value,
relates 10 taxation tor the purposes Oh
revenue and not TO special assessments oy
municipal corporations for municipai I'M
provements": also, that the provisions
OF the charter of Lynchburg empowering
the Council. when water-mains are LAID IN
the streets. TO levy its annual special assess
meat on the real estate on both sides OF
ouch street to meet the expenses OF the
water-works. and further authorizing II 10
exempt from such assessment any property
10 which water ia supplied and TO which
to the Constitution"
DAVIS AGAINST LYScHBUEo.
In the case of Davis against the City. OF
Lynch burg cath Virginia Reports. Judge
Lacy delivering the opinion, Judge Rich
ardson aosent) the court held that -" city
charter that provides that whenever street
is opened, DC, the City Council may ap,
portion the expense between the city ana
the owners Of real estate benefited there
by, and direct that their share OF the ex,
peusn he collected as city taxes, &C.. is not
repugnant to the fourteenth amendment,
United States Constitution, In that II con-
taips no provision for the party affected
20 appeal and contest the proceedings -;
also that 1.-The constitutional provision
requiring taxation to be equal and uniform
and I'D Udlorem relates to taxation Tor reVe-
nue and not to special assessments by mu-
inequalities, and the system OF assessing
real estate adjacent TO a street TO be I'M
proved by the front foot rs constitutional.
These decisions were IN accordance WIN
well. known precefents established by the
predecessor OF the present court, notaoly
in the cases of Sands against the Glty Oh
Richmond and Norfolk City against Eills'
NORFOLK AGAINST oHANBERLAiEE
In the opinion IN the hAmberlaine case
Il is true. the court SAYS, II does not over,
rule the cases Of Sands against Richmond
and Norfolk CITY against Ellis. but intl-
T'afes that the reason It does not Is
that II is not necessary. In the lengthy
discussion Of the doctrine, occupying
conc seventy-odd pages, the Court attacks
ana distinctly disapproves Of the reasoning
of its predecessor in those two cases. III
also afirms that the only legal manner IN
which TO pay for street improvements IS oy
general taxation, and denies that any mode
of assessing the Rbutting owners can oe
equal and uniform. Hence 1t must be IN
constitutional.
Thus II appears. as viewed by the legal
fraternity, that while the Court declined
in words to override the Sands ana LIES
cases and the doctrine therein announced
and which had been Iea,iirmed IN the two
decisions of its own above quoted, 1t at;
tackled the doctrine. denounced 1t, and
virtually overruled it.