Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-06-22
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
Why the District Has Made No Contest in
Cases of Certiorari.

cases OF Cert1Orar1.
Assistant Attorney s. T. Thomas TODAY, in re-
ply to a recent letter Of the Commissioners ask
ing the attorneys Office for a statement Of the
reasons why no contest IL made in behalf of the
District in caees Of certiorari involving special
assessments, and whether there ia any prospect
Of the District being successful in any of them,
says:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY D. c.,
June 81, 1892.
To the Hon. Commissioners, &C., &c.
Gentlemen-Your letter of the 18th instant,
asking the attorney of the District for state
ment Of the reasons why no contest is made in
behalf OF the District in cases of certiorari in
volving special assessments and whether there
10 any prospect Of the District being successful
in any of them, has been referred to me for
answer.
The reason why no contest has recently been
made In such cases is because the General Term
of our Supreme Court, in a series of cases ex-
tending over period of ten years, has held
them void where either of the following objec-
tions existed: ~ Where the property was i'm
perfectly described. as, for instance of lot -
&c. (2) Where the original assessment was
signed by the surveyor of the District instead Of
the board Of public works or the Commissioners.
(S Where the revised assessment was not made
on the complaint Of the owner Of the property.
"a Where the revised assessment includes
items, however small. not included in the origi-
nal assessment. 60 Where there ia no record
showing how the owner was notified of the as
sessment.
These objections, as understand it, exist in
all the special assessments now remaining in
the books Of the District, except such as have
been levied for work done under the so-called
compulsory permit system in recent years.
The validity OF these special assessments was
vigorously and aggressiveiy defended by our
predecessors, Messrs. Riddle and Davis, but
without success, and they have uniformly been
declared void by the courts mainly on the
points above mentioned.
A short while after the present attorney for
the District came into Office the Great Falls Ice
Company sued the District in certiorari to
quash certain assessments against its property
We took the ground in that case on the author
ity OF Mattingly agt District, 81 L. s., 6S7, that
the act OF Congress of 1878 for the revision Of
special assessments was a curative act, AID that
the revision OF an assessment under il had the
effect Of confirming the doings of the board of
public works touching the improvement of
roads and streets and of ratifying the assess
ments prepared under the legislative assembly
act Of August 10, 1871, as charges on adjoining
property, and that it conferred upon the Com
missioners power to revise and correct such as
sessments within thirty days after the passage
Of the act. and that such confirmation was az
binding IS though authority had originally been
conferred by law to direct the improvement and
make the assessment.
But it was held among other things that the
oct Of 1878 had no such effect; that it did not
authorize revision except upon complaint of
the owner, and that Congress never intended
to give validity to everything called an assess
ment prepared under the legislative act of 1871.
This case is reported in Is Washington Law
Reporter at page 1913. The truth is immedi-
ately after the passage Of the act of 1878 for the
revision Of assessments the Commissioners went
70 work and revised all the assessments pre-
pared under the legislative act of 1871 fire.
spective OF complaint on the part Of the owners.
This 1t seems was error.
the appellate jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court
none Of them have been taken there for review
do not think, in view of the decisions Of the
General Term, there is any chance for the Dis
trict TO succeed in any Of these cases and take
advantage Of this opportunity to urge upon
you the propriety Of recommending TO Con-
gress the passage of the bill now in the hands
Of Senator Perkins, providing for a reassess-
ment In all cases where general and
special taxes during the past ten
years have been declared void by the courts
on technical grounds, based on the failure of
the taxing officers to perform their duty. Such
statutes are found in many Of the states. They
are justified by such jurists as Cooley and Dill
Ion, and are sanctioned by courts of last resort
In several Of the states, and fail to perceive
any good reason why this District should not
have one. The District should be reimbursed
by reassessment for moneys'expended in the i'm
provement OF streets and which have been lost
merely because the original assessment proved
inefficient.