Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-02-26
CITY COUNCIL.
BOARD OF ALDERMEN.

! W ACpOoi q paIt vi SeC
ton 3, chapter II, of the corporation
code, which was laid over at the las,
meeting, was again postponed on mo
ton of Mr.. Sweeney.
A petition from John Brawner, re-
| questing Council to allow him to con.
struct frame stable in the rear of his
residence on Royal street, was referred
to the commits tee on streets.
Mr.. Havener said the building was in
the rear of his residence, and he had
no objection whatever to it. He said
that Mr.. Brawner had erected the
building, but he was not versed in the
law, and did not get the consent OF
Council.
Mr.. Ballenger presented petition OF
John S. Beach for privileges to lay
sewer pipes from the northeast inter
section of the Jail lot in southeriy di-
rection parallel to the east wall of the
Jail to connect with sewer in Princess
street.
The board granted the petition,
which was afterward received from the
lower board non-concurring in the &C.
ton of this board, but granting the re-
quest of the petitioner that the work be
done under the supervision of the COM
mittee on streets and the city engineer,
the proper charges to be made by said
committee.
The bill to amend sections 33 and 40
of the city charter was read three times
and passed by unanimous vote.
After concurring in the action of the
lower board in several petitions the
board adjourned.
COMMON COUNCIL.
The Common Council was called to
order at about quarter to o'clock.
Mr.. Cation moved that the reading of
the minutes of the last meeting be dis
pensed with as we'll as the regular or
der OF business and that the report of
the committee on general laws on the
amendment to the city charter be con-
sidered.
This was agreed to, and the clerk
proceeded to read the bill which had
been prepared, the substance of which
was published in yesterdays GAZETTE.
The chair, in referring to the section
providing for the appointment by the
court of commissioners to appraise the
benefit property will receive by i'm
provements. asked if the Mayor or
Council could otappoint such tribunal.
Mr.. Cation said that matter had been
discussed by the committee. The
Court of Appeals in the decision re-
Gently handed down had suggested that
the property owner should have his
case heard by an impartial tribunal.
Council was to enforce the law; hence
the question might be raised as to
whether it was an impartial tribunal.
1t had therefore been determined to
proceed as in cases of eminent domain
and let the court appoint the commits
sioners. The cases which would arise
from the enforcement of the ordinance
would finally appeal to the court. He
said the bill had as near as possible
been framed in the light of the recent
decision.
The chair thought that the Mayor or
City Council could appoint the COM
missioners. Court proceedings were
very expensive.
Mr.. Burke asked if the parties in liti-
CATION sh nd not bear the expense.
The chairman replied that the city
would eventually pay most of the court
charges. Still be wanted everything to
be carried out in accordance with the
recent decision.
Mr.. Cation said,in the bill there was
clause providing for the assessment of
court charges against the party except
ing to the assessment. He suggested
that the assessment of the costs in such
eases be made against the party the
court thought proper. The bill was so
amended.
Mr.. Uhler said it was not plain to his
mind as to the accuracy OF the assess
ments. He though it highly probable
that the first case which was appealed
would be decided against the city by
the higher court.
Mr.. Cation said no appeal would he
taken in cases under $500 except where
some constitutional question was in
volved. Very few assessments would
reach $500. The committee had done
all they could with the matter and all
that can follow is but to try the ex-
pertinent of enforcing the law. Should
the present bill prove to be defective
then Council would have to fall back
upon the city's revenues in order to
make street improvements. He be-
lieved however, with sensible men as
commissioners the law would he found
to give general satisfaction. Mr.. Cation
then went into an explanation Of the
manner of making the assessments.
The chairman asked if it cost 81, 500
to improve square and the commits
sioners decided the property had only
been benefited 81 900, would the prop
erty owners have to pay only their
share of what the commissioners fixed
the assessment. Ifso, how would the
city get the money back? or, suppose
King street were repaved and no in
crease in valuation followed.
Mr.. Caton-"Then the city would
pay all. That is a principle of the
Supreme Court"
Mr. Uhler suggested that there was
! no provision in the bill for paying
damages to property injured by raising
or cuttin down a street. Other cities
paid damages and assessed benefits.
In referring to the recent decision in
the Violet case Mr.. Uhler said the
case had cost the city $500 when but
$500 was involved.
Mr.. Cation said all persons had the
courts to appeal to in cases of damages.
Mr.. Burke thought when peoples
property was increased to greater
extent than the cost of doing the work