Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-07-14
Is THE ASSESSMENT Waldo
Legal Point Raised and Answered at the
District Bui1diuxx.

District Buildings.
Among the communications received by The
STAR today was the following from q we'll
known attorney:
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
The fundamental question here involved, in
dependently Of any other question which can
arise under our present bungfing assessment
laws, refers to the power to appoint the three
assessors who have made the present assess
ment
What authority is authorized to appoint the
three assessors?
Only two laws are involved. viz: One. the
regular assessment law Of March s, 1888, chap
ter 1877, which provides that the Commissioners
OF the District "shall, on the second Monday of
March. 1888, or as soon thereafter practica-
BILE, and every third year thereafter. divide the
District into not exceeding twelve subdis-
tricts, and shall appoint one assessor to each
subdistrict, who shall be a resident thereof"
and the other law in1olved which is contained
In an appropriation act, is that of March 8.
1881. chapter 546 (26 Stats. at Large, p. 1862,
and in no line will you find authority for the
commissioners to appoint the three assessors.
either expressly granted or fairly implied under
the ordinary rules for the construction Of stat
utes. The last mentioned law. which contains
no express words Of repeal to the former
law for the appointment of twelve assessors. is,
in part, as follows:
For three assistant assessors, at o., 500 per
annum each, who shall within the calendar
year, 1892, under the direction of the assessor
Of the District Of Columbia, make the assess
ment of real property in said District for the
trlennial period beginning with the fiscal year
1888 and perform such other duties and have
AL the power and authority to do the things re-
quired of the twelve assessors under the pro-
visions Of the act of March 8, 1888, and perform
such other duties as may be assigned to them
Inconsistent Wi ayfS I'M
sor in the assessment Of real and personal
property"
The last quoted act gives no power, either
express or implied, to the Commissioners TO
appoint the three assessors. but merely pro-
vides for their compensation and duties when
appointed
II we have no duly appointed and qualified
assessors there must, of necessity, be no valid
assessment under the present condition Of the
law. LEX Non LEX.
THE AUTHORITY OF ANOTHER Law.
Speaking of the matter to a STAR reporter a
prominent member of the District bar said this
afternoon that in the case of Eckloff VS.. Dis
trict of Columbia 135 T. s. Reports, $40, the
United States Supreme Court, in affirming the
judgment of the District Court in Gen
eral Term. held that under the act of
June IL, 1878, the Commissioners Of the
District were authorized to abolish any Office.
to consolidate two or more offices, reduce the
number OF employees remove from Office and
make appointments to any Office under them
authorized by law"
$50. he remarked, "the only question is: Are
these assessors officers under the Commission
ers authorized by law3 They surely are, it
seems to me. Under the act Of March 8, 1888.
the twelve assessors provided for in that act
were undoubtedly officers under them author
lied by law. and the act Of March 8. 1891, pro-
vlding for the present assessors gave these latter
officers the same power and authority that the
twelve assessors possessed. Therefore it seems
to me that the Commissioners clearly possessed
the authority to appoint the present board of
assessors"
Referring to the subject Commissioner
Douglass expressed precisely the same opinion.