Evening star., 1895-06-05
AGAINST THE DISTRICT.
Court of Appeals Decides Water As.
CnS

After its adjournment for the day yester-
| day afternoon, the Court of Appeals filed
| its opinion in the case of August Burgdorf
| against the District of Columbia, declaring
| that assessments for water mains are,
| where there has been no previous notice to
| property owners, invalid. The case is Of
| more than usual importance and interest
| to the people of the District, and the effect
| of the decision will, it is estimated, result
in loss to the District of several hundred
| thousand dollars. AS the amount at issue
in the particular case decided yesterday
does not reach 5000 the case cannot, it
| is explained, be carried to the United
States Supreme Court.
1t was contended by Messrs. 4. \. and
T. w. Birney counsel for Mr.. Burgdorf, in
the court below that Mr.. Burdorfs prop
erty had been illegally assessed in pay
ment for the laying of water main adj
jacent to his property. The assessment was
Illegal, it Vas claimed for the reason that
Mr.. Burgdorf had never been notified of,
nor consulted as to, the proposed laying OF
the water main. 1t was contended too,
that the assessment was not based on bene-
fitS; that IL was much higher than the
actual cost of the work; that the assess
ment not made by the authority Of
the Commissioners, nor by any one to
whom the power had properly been dele
gated; that the law of 1880 does not au-
thoriZe any such assessment, and that the
property was insufficiently described Mr..
Chief Justice Bingham, before whom tho
case was heard below, sustained the con-
tentions of Mr.. Burgdorf's counsel, where
upon the District noted an appeal to the
Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in an opinion writ
ten by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey, holds that
while the law of 1890 gives the District
Commissioners power to lay water mains,
neither by direct statement nor by fair i'm
plication from any other act or acts does
II give them power to levy assessments to
pay for the mains. Nor does the law of
1873, although in full force, apply to the
nor the collector of taxes authorized the
assessment. These grounds, 1t is held.
would alone invalidate the assessment but
the assessment was also invalid, holds the
court because of want of notice to the
property owner. In the case of Altman
against the United States, relied on by
counsel for Mr. Burgdorf, there was no
legislative dictum as to what should be a
uniform rate but the law of 1873 makes
the rate one and one-fourth cents per
square foot, and points out what property
shall be assessed. Such legislative valua-
ton of the special benefit to property IS
not subject to review by the courts, the
special benefit being assessed as a tax, and
the principle that the legislative branch
has exclusive control of taxation being un-
deniable. Notice is provided for in the act
OF 1873, says the court, not before work
can be done, but before the assessment can
become effective, and as II is not pretended
that notice was given in this case, the as
seSsment is, therefore, invalid While re.
GREETING the loss to the District the court
remarks that it has no power TO avert the
by an act Of Congress. In the case of X.
ID. Weaver against the District, exactly
similar to the Burgdorf case, the same
action was taken.