Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-03-15
"sINGLE TAX" ILLEGAL.
Decision Of the Maryland Court Of Appeals
In Hyatfsvflle's Case.

THE ACT OF 1892, UNDER WHICH THE coM-
MrssIoSEEs OPERATED, DID NOT AUTHORIZE
| THE EXEMPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH
Is CONTRARY TO TIE RIeBrs OF CITIZENS
! NO POWER TO EXEMPT PERSONAL PROPERTY.
! An opinion of more than usual interest has
been handed down in the Maryland court of
appeals in the appeal case of C. A. Wells, L. D.
/ Wine and others from the circuit court of
Prince Georges county. Md. 1t is the final
/ chapter in the history of the fight of certain
citizens of Hyattsville against the exemption
from taxation Of improvements on land and Of
personal property-commonly known as the
''single tax system"
| The opinion in the case was written by Judge
Mcsherry, and after deciding that the act of
1892. under which the Hyattsville commissioners
acted, did not authorize the exemption from
taxation Of improvements. the opinion goes on
| to declare that the act is null and void in that
it authorizes the exemption Of personal prop
| erty. being in disregard Of the 18th article Of
the declaration Of rights. which has for q CEN
fury been the organic Jaw of Maryland.
WHAT THE ACT OF 1892 AUTHORIZED.
After briefly rehearsing the story Of the
"single tax fight" at Hysttsville, the court
says:
NOW. the act Of 1892 was manifestly never
intended to confer and does no. in express
terms confer upon the board Of commissioners
of Hyattsville the authority to exempt from
taxation the buildings and improvements
situated within the limits of the corporation.
On the contrary. it specifically directs the
treasurer and assessors to assess every piece of
land and every building improvement
separately, putting upon the land a valuation
precisely as the general assessment law pre-
scribed should be done in the valuation of the
same class of property for the purposes of state
and county taxation. (Act Of 1867, chapter 26o,
section III
Upon the completion Of the assessment the
board of commissioners were authorized, as "a
final board of appeals. equalization and con-
troll, to hear appeals and make such deduc-
tons or exemptions from and addition to the
assessment as they might deem just, and to
correct errors or illegal assessments, and upon
making the deductions or exemptions, ad6i-
ton. correction and final completion OF the
levy a tax Of not more than 25 cents on
the hundred dollars upon all the prop
erty remaining embraced in the assess
ment roll These powers, except the one
relating to the actual levy. strictly confined
to a revision of the assessment previously made
bv the treasurer and assessors. The property
which the assessors are directed to assess is de-
scribed-it is land and improvements. Both
are required to be assessed, and they are to be
assessed for the purposes Of taxation The
assessors valuations are subject to revision
that is. abatement or to increase; or, if i'm
properly made for any reason. as. for instance,
because the property is beyond or partially
beyond the limits of the town, to exception or
exclusion totally ratably.
but this is very different from a complete
exemption of buildings and improvements from
all taxation. Because the commissioners may
make deductions or exceptions from the
assessors valuations. it by no means follows
that they may strike out those valuations alto
gether. To make deductions or exceptions
from the valuations placed by the assessors on
buildings and improvements implies that some
part of the original valuation must remain, and
does not mean that the entire assessment shall
or can be expunged. Any other construction
would not only lead to the greatest confusion,
but would, if adopted, repudiate the Tor and
well-settled doctrine that exemptions from
taxation are never presumed and are only.
allowed when clearly and unequivocally granted.
Mayor. &C., Baltimore, VS.. Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, Gill. 2Ss.)