Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1892-12-19
Taxcs on Strcct Improvcmcnts.

The decision of the Supreme Court
of Appeals in the case of Norfolk
against Chamberlain, involving the
right of municipality TO tax abutting
property-owners for street improve
ments. continues to be the chief topic
of conversation among lawyers. 1t is
the opinion of some of the leading
members of the bar that the court has
not only abrogatcd the long-standlnS
doctrine on the question, but has dis
tinctly antagonized its own record.
In the case Of the Richmond and Al
leghany Railroad Company against the
City OF Lynchburg (iiighty-Grst Viz
ginia Reports, Judge Lewis delivering
the opinion, )the present court held that
''the provisions of the Constitution re-
ouiringtaXation TO be equal and uniform,
and that all property shall be taxed
in proportion 10 its value. relates to
taxation for the purposes ofrevcnue,
and not TO special assessments by mu-
nicipal corporations for municipal i'm
provcments" also, that 'thc provi-
sions OF the charter Of Lynchburg en-
towering the Council. when water
ma n are laid the streets, to levy its
annual special assessment on the real
estate on both sides of such street TO
meet the expenses of the water-works,
and further authorizing it to exempt
from such assessments any property
to which water is supplied and to
which water-rates are charged, are
not repugnant to the Constitution"
III the case Of Davis against the City
of Lynchburg (S4th Virginia Reports,
Judge Lacy delivering the opinion,
Judge Richardson ABSENT the court
held that "a city charter that provides
that whenever q street is opened, &C.,
the City Council may apportion the eX-
pense between the city aud the owners
of real estate benefited thereby, and
direct that their share of the expense
be collected as city taxes, &c, is not
repugnant to the fourteenth amend
ment, United States Constitution, in
that it contains no provision for the
party affected to appeal and contest
The proceedings also, that 'consti-
tutional provision requiring taxation
to be equal and uniform and ad rdlO-
rem relates to taxation for revenue and
not to special assessments by munich
palitics, and the system of assessing
real estate adjacent to a street to be
improved by the front foot is constitu-
tional.'
These decisions were in accordance
with well-known precedents establish
ed by the predecessor Of the present
court, notably in the cases of Sands
against the City of Richmond and Nor
folk City against Ellis.
In the opinion in the Chamberlaine
case it is true, the court says, it does
not override the cases Of Sands against
Richmond and Norfolk against Ellis,
but intimates that the reason it does
not that it is not necessary. In the
lengthy discussion of the doctrine. oc-
cupying some seventy-odd pages, the
Court attacks and distinctly dis
approves of the reasoning of its pre-
decessor in those two cases. 1t also
if rms that the only legal manner in
which to pay for street improvements
is by general taxation, and denies that
any mode of assessing the abutting
owners can be equal and uniform.
Hence it must be unconstitutional.
Thus it appears, as viewed by the
legal fraternity, that while the Court
declined in words TO overrule the
Sands and Ellis cases and the doctrine
therein announced and which had been
reafiirmed in the two decisions of Its
own above quoted, it attacked the
doctrine, denounced it. and virtually
overruled Richmond Dispatch.