Evening star., 1896-03-17
ASSESSMENTS OF BENEFITS
Court of Appeals Holds Them to Be Uncon-
stitutional
Judge C0x's Decision in the Van Ris-
wick Case Upheld-An Inter.
esting Opinion.

The Court or Appeals this afternoon af-
firmed the decision of Judge Cox in the
case of the Van Riswick heirs against the
ROCK Creek Park comm ssion, holding that
the court below rightly enjoined the COM
missioners from levying an assessment On
certain lands adjoining the park for sup
posed benefits accruing to the lands from
the location of the park
The park, it will be remembered. was ac-
quired by the United States under the pro-
visions of the act of Congress of February
p, 1880. and the act further provided that
the commission should proceed, after the
acquisition of the land embraced within the
park, to make an assessment for special
benefits on such property in the District as
would be benefited by the location and i'm
proVement Of the park, and assess the cost
ana expenses of the park upon the lands,
lots and blocks proportionately, such assess
ments to be liens on the property assessed
and to be collected as taxes.
1 he park having been acquired and paid
for the commission proceeded TO make the
assessment. when the Van Riswick heirs
GWrerS OF adjacent real estate, prayed for
an Injunction, Contending that the pro-
posed assessment is repusnant to the Con-
sr1tutlon of the United States, and, there
fore, void. Judge Cox SO held and granted
the injunction.
The Courts Opinion.
written by Mr.. Justice Morris, and after
deciding that the court below the Equity
CourD had jurisdiction the justice lays
down as fundamental principle that zone
man cannot be taxed more in proportion
than another
Whether taxation by way of special as
sessment is free from the objection of want
of uniformity is open to grave doubt" says
the court, and further, with all due re-
spect to the public sentiment in favor OF
the theory of special assessments and to
tne great preponderance of judicial deci-
sion, by which it has been sustained. we
are disposed to think that system, to
which large part of the municipal cor
ruption that exists in our country can be
traced. and which leads to result SO alb
surd as that evidenced in the act of Con-
sress now under consideration, must be
radically vicious and unjust. Vicious, be-
cause it is arbitrary; unjust, because 1t
compels the individual citizen in many
cases, probably in most cases, to pay more
than his just share of the common burden
for the public good. Special assessments
are levied arbitrarily and without any rule
having fixed foundation in Justice"
Held to BE Absurd.
Justice Morris, speaking for the court,
Of course. then goes on to say that if any
part of the cost may be specially assessed
the whole may be. Indeed" he says, 'ill
the very case before us it is sought to
cast the whole and entire cost of the enter
Prise upon the adjoining owners, and the
theory is carried to it's extreme extent, a
conclusion that would make il 1udicrous
If IL were not 50 grossly oppressive. But
il these works are public works, the pub
lie alone should pay for them. If they are
rot public works, the public authorities
have no right to undertake them. We be-
lIeEe there is no middle ground of partner
snip in such works between the public and
the individual citizen, and that compulsory
payment therefor by the individual citizen
is unjust when, perhaps. he has not re-
QueSted the Improvement and may even
have antagoniZed it,
The opinion Of Judge Cox is referred to
as an excellent one, and in it the Court of
Appeals fully concurs, states Mr. Justice
Morris, as fairly and justly expressing the
law on the subject, and the section of the
act in question is declared not only uncon-
stltutional but SO hopelessiy inconsistent
and meaningless that it is impossible of
execution.
Chief Justice Alvey Dissents.
Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey, however, dis
sented from his associates opinion, both as
to the jurisdiction of the court below and
as to the constitutionality of the law.
Those attorneys interested in the street
extension cases who read the opinion of
the majority of the court were delighted
with it and expressed themselves as being
confident that the court will also sustain
Judge Cox in holding the highway act un-
constitutional. '--. ,Fs..--