Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-07-18
WATER MAIN ASSESSMENTS
An Important Opinion Relating to George
town Property.
Tax Collected Under the Old Corpora.
ton Laws-Mr. Thomns' Opinion
on the Refund Request.

All IhtcIcStiIiS OpIIllOu was rendered Dy
the attorney for the District today upon
water main assessments in Georgetown.
The opinion was called forth by the own
ers Of Cooke Park. who recently requested
refund Of money enormously paid for
water mains laid on 3oth, Cambridge and
Irving streets. 1t was claimed that this
ground was assessed under Georgetown,
when the water was put in Georgetown in
1859 The cost Of the water main. which 1t
is claimed was enormously paid, was. as
sessed In. 1888. and shortly after AIR. Column
bus Alexander applied to have The tax can
ceied under the plea that 1t had previously
been assessed by Georgetown. and the
same was done. -
1t was doubtful with the Commissioners
whether this assessment should be can
celed. even conceding that the tax Of 60
cents per front foot had been levi ID and
collected as prescribed In the ordinance of
Georgetown OF May. 8, 1850. 1t was main-
tanned that this tax was to enable this
corporation to redeem said stock and pay
interest thereon and other expenses at
tending the Introduction and maintenance
Of the water establishment" In the case
under discussion there Is tract Of land,
six and one-half acres. bounded 6n three
sides by city streets. water main was
laid on one front of this tract and s. sessed
at 90 cents per front foot on that front,
leaving the other two fronts and any new
fronts that might be created by subsequent
subdivision assessable for mains when 10 I'd
on those fronts. 1t was claimed by the
Commissioners that when the tax Of 90
cents per front foot was levied 1t was
never the intent that the levying Of this
tax on one front of this piece Of property
should In any way prevent the fevying OF
another such tax or any other equitable
tax on the other fronts of the property
when mains had been laid on these fronts
a for he -
an opinion at that time in which he held
that the law authorized an assessment of
I'D cents per front foot and made dis
tinction as to the size or depth of the lot
itnd further, he was unable to perceive any
difference between an assessment to re-
deem water stock issued to defray the
cost of laying a water main and an assess
meit to defray the cost of laying a water
main. He recommended at that time that
the assessments complained of be can
ceied and the money refunded.
But this opinion did not please the Com
missioners, who believed the assessment
should be Cancelled after decision by the
courts
Opinion Revised.
This called for another opinion from the
attorney, which he rendered today, and. be-
ing of considerable interest, is given In full
below: .-' -ar.F--
Il have concluded to revise my opinion
When the case was before me in Nav last
l had In mind the case of Columbus Alex
aEder, and supposed that this case was in
all things parallel with that; that the as
sessment against Cooke Park for Iayinsa
water main in 1893 was made upon the
same front of the tract which was assessed
in 1859.
"On re-examination I find that | was in
error on both OF these points. The law in
regard to assessments at the rate of "a
cents per front foot for laying water mains
traOrUat0wn does n I l;y,ly
another side or front of the same square
or tract of land. may not subsequently, be
assessed for the laying Of another or differ
ent, main, but only thai the particular front,
abutttng the main, should be liable to an
assessment TO defray the cost of LAYING the
main. The principle of assessments for the
laying OF water mains In the city Of Wash
ington Is different-it provides for an assess
ment at the rate of a cent and a quarter
per square foot.
The effect of assessment by area is in the
event square is not subdivided into lots to
collect. in advance. four, five or six times
the amount OF money required to lay the
n1ain.- In other words, all fronts of the
property are assessed in advance to pay the
cost or laying water mains whenever they
become necessary. This method Is mani
testify ineQuitable, and there is every reason
why when an assessment by area has been
levied and collected IT should not be repeat
cd But this reason does not apply in the
CT sc Of an assessment by the front foot,
"HANh as ocsiohCu W, anu winch N0eS, IN
fact, as l understand. raise only sufficient
money to lay the particular main There
was and Is, therefore no reason why such
an assessment should be made a bar to
future assessments for laying mains on
other fronts of the square or tract There
is manifestly a difference in principle be-
tween an assessment by the front foot and
one by area to raise money to defray the
cost of laying water mains. An assessment
BY the front foot implies that only the par
ticular front Is to be assessed, whereas an
assessment by area, In the event the ground
Is not subdivided into lots, of uecessisA en-
braces the entire tract, and thus pas in
advance for The laying of mains on all the
fronts For these reasons thought proper
to revise my opinion given on the Path of
e1ay last. and / now advise that the appli-
oants in this case are not entitled to a re-
fund of the money paid by them IN satisfac-
ton OF the assessment made for laying
water main In 1888, because / believe the
assessment in 1850 was not intended to and
CID not have the effect of preventing a fu-
tCre assessment on other fronts of the same
tract. If the owners of Cooke Park are adj
vised differently, they have their remedy in