Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1892-12-21
Stallntolt Spectator.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21st.
An Imnortant Decision.

las Deon Unelr cuSlOul W w, Tic oWh-
ers of abutting property on the streets
with portion of the cost of street I'M
provements. The Court of Appeals de-
cides that the laws authorizing such
assessments are unconstitutional and
void, and that such assessments can
not be enforced. Heretofore it mat
tered not how much the.owners of such
property might protest against being
taxed for improvements, the law was
against them, and they were cOnstrain-
ed to submit, however unwillingly, but
the Court of Appeals decides that the
law is unconstitutional and void. AS
these assessments were unconstitu
tional, will not the cities be compelled
10 refund to its citizens the money it
required them to pay in such cases 4? If
so, there will be lively time in some
of the cities and ours will be among
the number. We do not know what is
the law on that point, but it seems to
us that, if the city had no right to
make the citizens pay such assessment,
it is the duty of the city to refund to
them the amounts thus paid. This
seems to us to be what common honesty
would demand. But it may be that as
the cities acted in accordance with the
law, they will not be required to re-
fund. Certain it is that as long as the
late decision of the Court of Appeals
on this subject shall stand, the cities
will not venture on such assessments
except with the consent of the proper
ty-owner. This decision will probably
give rise to number of lawsuits.
Since the above was put in type we
received the Alexandria San which
refers as follows to the points men
toned by us in our remarks on the eff
feet of the decision referred to-
''The decision of the Court of APP
peals in the case of the city of Norfolk
deciees ring unconstitutional the law al
lowing municipalities to assess without
their consent property-holders with
the cost of street improvements is OF
interest all over the State. The ques-
ton now is whether persons who have
paid this tax can have it refunded
There is difference of opinion among
the LAWYERS on this subject. A motion
for rehearing of the Norfolk case has
already been filed. 1t is not improb-
able that case will be made up and
soon submitted to the courts to de-
termine the question whether the
cities cannot be compelled to refund
the money to property-ownefsp paid in
under the act just declared void"
The Danville Register expresses itself
as follows On the issue decided by the
Court of Appeals =
eff property-Owner can be made to
pave the public sidewalk in front of
his property, he may alsObe compelled
to pave the public street, to put down
the public sewer and the pubic gas
main, to run the electric light wire
in fine to make all public improve
ments in front of his property. A side
walk is as much public Improvement
and as much for the benefit of the pub
lie as the middle of the street, the
sewer, the gas main or the electric wire.
We have never believed, therefore, that
the city has the right to compel "a citi-
zen to pave a public sidewalk to be
used for the benefit Of the public"
LATER.-The Lynchburg Vargimaa1,
of Sunday last publishes a communica-
ton ON the reported decision alluded
to by one whom the Varginian en-.
dorses as one of the ablest lawyers of
that city, in which he says
1. AS yet, we have no report of the
decision, and are therefore, unable to
state precisely what has been decided
by the Court of Appeals. The city of
Richmond, l believe, has special and
peculiar mode of dealing with the sub
ject of street improvements. There it
is understood that the city, out of the
general treasury, grades and paves the
roadway from curb to curb, and re-
quires the Gbutti11g lot-OaOa9er to pave
the sidewalk. or which is the same
thing, to repay to the city the expense
of the sidewalk in front of his lot. If
THIS only is the thing condemned, while
the decision would be pointblank
everything of the decision of the Court
of Appeals in Sands US. Richmond, 81,
Grafton 571, the decision would not be
especially mischievOus, and would
have some support in decisions of re-
spectacle authority in other States,
though the weight of authority would
seem against 1t.
2. But if, as reported by the press,
the decision in question is to the effect,
that local assessments for street i'm
proyements. according to the front foot
rule are unconstitutional. then it is
nothing less than revolutionary over
turning the charters of the cities in
which that mode has been expressly
authorized bv the Legislature. and set
ting aside the series of decisions bv the
former courts of Appeals in Virginia.
composed of verv able and learned
Judges. such as Langhorqae cs. Robin
SON 20 Grattan 661 Norfolk Us. E7zis.
26 Grattan 224 Sands rs. Richmond
26 Grattan 224; Richmond Dc DanUfIze
Railroad Co.. gs. Lynctbatr0s 81 Va. 473.
and especially the recent case of Dauis
Us. Lu,lchbur0 81 Va. S61, in which the
front foot has been generally recog-
nized by the courts, AS constitutional
anu Vaiiu, anu Ih:1I III lnusc pe helu TO