Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-03-28
THE SEWER TAX.

M. hralG III submitting rtpoIG WILL
out recommendation from the commit,
tee, on the petition of ex-Mayor Down
ham for exemption from the sewertap-
ping tax, in the Common Council on
Tuesday night said
.Mr. President, I now nov to lay
the petition upon the table as there is
no good reason to grant the request
OF the petitioner. This case is not an
exceptional one, but is parallel and
identical with all the cases of sewer
tapping in the city of Alexandria or
any other city. The petitioner with a
number of others has tapped the Pitt
street sewer for the purpose of abolish
ing a nuisance on his own premises, in
creasing, thereby, a nuisance that exist
ed upon the property of Mr.. M. B. Har-
low at the mouth of that sewer, which
was one of the reasons for extending
that sewer to the river at az expense OF
several thousand dollars to the city.
The bill regulating the tapping ofpub-
lie sewers is, in my opinion, not retro
active, 81 indicated in this petition, be-
cause persons having tapped such sew
ers previous to the passage of this act
are not charged an additional tax, but
are on an equal footing with persons
tapping such sewers hereafter. The Cor
poration attorney is also of the opinion
that the bill will stand legal test. The
bill does not mako the use of sewers
compulsory, but such use is optional
and persons who are unwilling to pay
for their use can have their taps dis
connected at the expense of the city,
as provided for in this bill. While the
petitioner doubts the propriety ofpass-
ing such a bill without referring it to 8
committee, he is perfectly correct. but
this bill was introduced by me and re-
ported 10 the committee on general
laws almost year ago, and it was pend
ing in written form for seven months
before it was favorably reported and
during all that time the petitioner
did not avail himself ofthe opportunity
offered to enter a protest. against it.
Had the Pitt street sewer not existed,
the petitioner would have been obliged
to extend his private sewer all the way
to the river, like the Cooney Bros,
Burke & Herbert, Donnelly and others,
and would have incurred q much
greater expense, and the fact that he
had to lay two squares of pipe to con-
meet with the public sewer is therefore
no good reason for e%xemptiug him from
the operation of this act. In a message
to the City Council by the petitioner
dated April 9, 1889, he recommends the
following in reference to sewers
Another important matter for your consid-
Grafton is that of a system of sewerage.
l am Of the opinion. that the subscription
that can be secured from the property owners
and tenants, adjacent to the lines where sew
ers may be run, will very materially lessen
the cost to the city of a proper sewer, and if
the revenues are used to creste a sinking
fund, the amounts so received if used as ju-
diciously as are the funds set aside for the re-
demption of our present bonded Indebtedness,
would soon become sufficient to reimburse the
city for tho cost of such sewer.
l would suggest that the privilege of tap
ping the sewer be scaled according to capacity
of the pipe used, and the size of buildings
which are to have its use; enact ordinances
requiring persons to use them and abandon
the system now in use, thst of wells aud
boxes.
City Council has passed an act in
pursuance of that recommendation,
scaling the tax according to the size of
the buildings, but did not make the
use of sewers compulsory, as recon-
mended in that message. The granting
of the prayer of the petitioner would be
equivalent to a repeal of the act recent
ly passed by this Council.