The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1895-12-17
A Rambler Of Petitions Sent to the
Board Of Appraisers.
REPORT or SPECIAL COMMITTEE READ
Ana supply Of Ariesisn Water Promised
Street Improvements Discussed The
Proceedings in Full.

Hetnze ana aunelNH'
secretary Richardson was at his post
and City Attorney Stewart, Fire chief
Rayell. Street Commissioner Kennedy
and chief of Police Pruett were in at
4 tendance.
Petitions from the following parties
were referred to the board OF appraisers;
Theresa Schmidt. Lawrence Frank. II.
a q. Harding, Mrs A. J. Altman. Mrs. ].
Y. Knight Mrs. A. willett. n. ponnclly.
Mrs. A. c. Muses.. James ". sam, II.
LOUDER. H. and S. a Sam, Mrs. c.
Kramer, Mrs A. c, Schneider and G.
wilkenins. These parties find fault with
assessment OF property ard ask for re-
duction.
From James Bates. asking for remission
Of fine of IS imposed by Recorder I'm
for violation OF scaveneer ordinance. Re
ferred to police committee.
From John Bennett, asking permission
to use portable engine and boiler or
his premises Referred 10 IRE committee
with power TO act
From W. j. Moore, stating that his land
was inundated whenever 1t rained owing
to defective sewers, and asking for re-
lief. Referred to street and bridge COM
mittee and the city engineer.
Isaac Hebron. by G. II. Pen5arvis his
attorney. presented petition to the coun-
Gil setting forth that In April, lse1, he
made contract with the city TO con-
struct drains and sewers. for which he
was to receive certificates which were 20
be a tax and lien on al the land within
the boundaries OF the LaBranch street
sewer district; that he had not collected
said certificates to the amount OF abou;
s5neo with interest from May ls9l. and by
the late decision OF thu supreme cour,
such Of said certificates as issuped against
homestead property are not a valid lien
thereon and 50 he can not collect sai8
5000 and interest and asks that the city
make provision 10 pay hin that amount.
This petition Was accompanied by the
following argument from Mr. Pendar,ls
on the subject matter:
To the Mayor and City Council:
1enuemen- In laying before you the pc.
ution OF Mr.. Hebron, / trust you wil
allo" me- as a ciiizen OF The city OF IpUs-
ton. equally interested VITA you rse Ives in,
her welfare, 20 discuss matters and max.
suggestions which would perhaps te c,it-
side my province simply as an atto-r.,.
The importance OF Tho decision of the
supreme court ln the Ease 9f Higgins vs.
DVTaaseS is noi YET LILY appreciated uy
our Ptppi~. MOI oniy does 40 u-rrss!t ate
a complete revolution 10 %. methods OF
street improvement htretyfQre in yoel.
~ Texas cities but " OPENS uu quea.ior-
before further announcements can uc made
N any manner Whatever opinion s.e
iltaF ny, ,nlfrtniii rs 60 thr correctness 81
m lesa Pr!nclpies announced bv tho
court as the basis Of lis decision. thr
decision itself must be accepted as IN.
law by which we are 10 he governed s,.,,.
after, a least until the coneri,ution %,
tne STATE 81 changed. The first eject nf
me DECISION j. % pat stop 70 the i'm.
b ptgsl-',i oi stress upon the. plan OF
ass,st,iR me cost against dhut'iug prop
efts- me only remaining alternative Is 10
lay 10y such improve n. -tg with funds
raiser by general taxation 1f..r.. is roam
for much difference Of opinion na ~ -
rAatlVe merits OF these two svsternr a-s
strong arguments may ha made In sun
49, e. 81 put there can be no diff
.Se"Ct o. opinion upon the proposition
thAt Whichever system ~ adorted should
pe adhered TO throughout. Any OTHER
ss $50 nus ~ result N gross Injustice Tho
ssTg heretofore prevailing has FL many
.nstAlceS worked great hardship rtou
~ f l.,!. properly owners. For example.
Tor WAGES and keeps no horse or reEi,'i.
oi any Kind is not benefited by the Dnr-
lag OF the street 1 front or hl- r,ror,s-f,-
except by the enhanced ,.olua ,-lv,r T.,
hls homestead By TIE IMPROVEMENT. T-rtn
Ae desires 70 sell his PROPERTY. ~. e-l,,
appreciate result 70 him is a y ,-,-~..s.e
% ms SIis!nSry taxation consequent uuon
lne supposed er haucetneut ~ v,lle a-i
TINS 8ncFi.4se has 81 most Instances 49,,
- n.Ai ar uospaf1ng hand on The
olhtr mann persons ~ this class lzvo ir,
InatF cases teen compelled 20 maxi, t,raa,
,sHf.hces 10 meet the assessments UNION
49,. P,9yi,esty igr paving and other pur-
..s sJ1f pt7JpiA have generally borne
s2F~. nar1sh4ps chre rfuiiv rer0grizi,..
- 1azS i1At the improvements we~e nj
Itskzry 70 fte prosperity OF .ba rit,- s,t
inat the system WAS in Inc -nsir :, go,
1ole one since each piece Of nrouer-t, -
49, ~ ~ IN tf'@ ,oaE run be called upon 20
80. 49, ~ proportion y the burden To
a.gN l1e system OF paying for fu-
]trt improvements by general raxa,io,
, mI.aoot any adjustment OF the eGuities
fTvNlf4g Out ~ the former svr,,.,, ts
simply 30 propose that r,rona,3, {, IL
slas contributed nothing 10 he cos, ~. tbe
.inYsof tsref-ts already made shall be- i'm
who have pad for he eIistirs i,I,, u,y,e
tse.its Ine Injustice OF this r,o,,r,si.{ o,, Ia
pAaln. %ia+ people who have borne thu
pnipt7s - rast improvements ,,sye ~.
only - see fhs r,-orsr,y % ta Iol
lsIafiste neiFiIirors Improved al the ee.s-
49,, - ~ a. aztRe. but the vefy improve
lag a-e % be made The basic Of i.,creses' "a
r~1@lcn Tor the Denesst ~ others
= N.t@ilpa ~ more i,ntne63s fciy nressing
bfp1ae eert!6cates now oil+s+s ri,it.,, a. *
aafie2 % contractors and their sae-,.-,, .,.r
- nc tg1ft has not VT cecidni
sfairsr ths property The decislor -
s,r cur 10 toe bOrdsess as hi fs-
80 117-h ", - thzt ihs former r15lir,
% we hefns co'ls4 t'sSt assassfns4ts ~ ,l,ts
NscsH were TAX superior 10 ths le,,rs
n1fao exemption was errOnasels ,rs,sS a. .
eD&fsS i1ih an cod 70 future : a., ss,r,.5r,,s
cn5 the q 'ifssfiDn wfielher fsertfacafs-s t.,.
tercs% l1ss.ec ara accepted F5r ecnt.z.,- ~,
LjSy'l nse falfh ~ the former dHr.is5or. =,
- et.tls.+1 remains oi,er. ii Is veil
An1ssa1 fs.sf tts5's are nOw felnr 'sksr "a
ostrx Dse q1stfson befor- ~. os-l,. a.,
1iflzA s<sfAssrs~r- II he court gee.i-,s.s ,t.s
tf<sA% Gersntzts3 car 10, - srsfo,re.f
<s-z-asef are properly upon when ,hr,,
S.rS ss>ssss'5g rfas question Viii men = n -
D.setfaf- 1f-s slpldfTs II ths sa-4iG,..tss
tllalt Etzrrl ~ ls1sE. Or y ae-he- 30 80,
snzSl rsT trsnl- Nhatepe- NAV - ,ti,l
rfafesS ceet1e2 ~ 20 tie legal iiafliity ~
ftae essg ~ TIE Eira'yi.ssea thsfe IL 10 ao,,ht
fta1 TIE certificate f.og4efe VII srt go
te1t - szzf1 this iogE wifi.pot prstraets5
ana sfntsarr@ssiDg litigation, the rercefsey
o. which vii seFlosJsiT AFFECT lie ifssh
81 tIs~ csty ai-d Indefinitely t,c,sti,one iii
fursher snlprogs;nsrf u III be Hraliy az.
ctded THAI the city - liable the erect win
ne p SfiIl further zgoertUsfs sslfs fnSys.ice
10 trpse property ownere S'ho haze AZ
reacy paid mir aEsaxSsncnfs. On .ha
Other hand " the Supreme court holds that
Csruhcates isgues1 before fise law Wal
changed hy the recent decision may H.
enforced against the properly Regardless
OF me Homestead exemption. fbe fact vii
fc,main that future improvements which
All ADMIT 10 be an abEoIptc necessity, can