Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-04-12

DrrrpEp IN FAVOR OF THE CITY
,,5ga Norton in the Corporation Court
MS morning in the case of the City
incl of Alexandria IS. Amanda NJ.
S.;oIeti ct al. (who demurred to the
rovmeut of an Improvement tax over
Pln-ia5 the demurrer and decided in
trs of the city. This suit, it will be
-amemberea, was brought by the city
IN order that the legality of the SD
:ection of city charter could be tested.
This section provides that property
owners on streets where improvements
are ordered shall bear two-thirds of the
expense. The judge in his opinion
quotes the section referred to, together
win the ordinance ordering improve
ments on Alfred street from Duke to
wilkes, where the property of the de-
fapdant is situated; also the general
ordinance of the City Council, provid-
inc for work of this kind, approved
Nav -, 1856. He also quotes the argu-
ments of the defendants counsel that
such ordinances are in conflict with the
l.th amendment to the constitution of
the United States and section l ofarticle
10 of the constitution of Virginia, as
well as the assertion that the City
Council had no power to pass such Or
dinance, and concludes as follows :
Whatever may be the decisions in the
other States the law has been settled
for long time in Virginia that the l4th
amendment to the constitution of the
United States does not apply to tax
alton of this sort, but that provision re-
lates principally to the exercise of the
right of eminent domain-that is, in the
taking of persons property directly
or indirectly. 1t does not relate to the
os,. eral taxing power of the State,
lIapa horn and Scott vs. Robinson, Goth
{irat.. 6G7 66S), nor does section of arii-
Gle 10 of the constitution apply to such
c,ses Norfolk city VS.. Ellis, Goth
GIat) 1t is true the case quoted was
NOT decided by q unanimous court, but
il has been followed in later decisions.
isee Davis vs.. the city of Lynchburg,
Sl,h Va.) This court feels bound by
the decisions Of the Supreme Court of
this State upon the identical point,
though it must be admitted there is
strong argument against the line of
Virginia decision on this subject, and
there are decisions of other States,
some Of them very strong, exactly OPP
posite to the decision ofour State. The
case of Norfolk vs.. Chamberlain, S9th
Va. was the practical confscation OF
property, and the ordinances Of contis-
cation showed the purposes plainly.
Relief was given in that case against
the tax, aud properly so, but that is not
the case here. In this case there is no
allegation that the assessment was not
a fair proportion of the costs, and the
Improvement to the property may be
presumed. After careful inspection
OF the charter OF the city and the ordi-
nances in pursuance thereof, ! think
the ordinances come fully within the
powers under the city charter. The
demurrer is therefore overruled.' The
case will now be taken to the Court Of
Appeals by the defendants, and should
the decision of the Corporation Court
he affirmed the work Of improving and
opening streets under the 33rd section
will be resumed. If, however, the low.
er court be reversed, such work will be
prosecuted through special tax or ap,
preparations from the general fund.