Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-02-14

and expenses OF opening, extending,
grading, or otherwise improving the
streets or sidewalks of such corporation
upon the land or lots abutting on the
street opened, extended, graded, or
otherwise improved, without providing
for notice to the person whose proper
ty may be affected by the assessment,
giving such person an opportunity to
appear and contest the legality, justice,
and correctness of the assessment at
some stage in the proceedings before
the assessment becomes final, such
statute is in conflict with the four
! teenth amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, and that an assess
ment made hereunder is void and Gre
ates no lein upon his property.
"The validity of assessments for local
purposes made under the charter and
ordinances of the cities concerned was
fully considered and decided in the Vir-
ginia cases named above, in each of
which, with the exception of Chamber
lain's case, SO Virginia, 1876, the assess
ment was declared not to be in viola
tion of section l of Article X. of the
State Constitution, the right to make
the assessment being upheld upon the
theory of benefits to the abutting lot
owners The court then holds that it
is we'll settled law in Virginia that an
assessment for local improvement, such
as is authorized by section S3 of the
charter of Alexandria city, is not In
conflict with section of Article x. OF
the Constitution of Virginia. Judge
Cardwell treats at considerable length
the question whether city ordinances Of
Alexandria in this respect are in con-
hict with the charter of the city. This
section Of the charter provided that an
assessment could be made upon the
owners of the real estate benefited, &C.
oording to the benefits to the property
assessed by the improvements, while
the ordinance Of the city stipulated that
the assessment in this case should be
made according a. the front of the ap.
pollant's grounds bore to all the ground
on the same side of, and binding op the
portion Of Alfred street improved-in
other words. the assessment was author
lied by the ordinance, and was actually
made according to the frontage of the
appellants land, and not according to
the benefits to their ground. Judge
Cardwell here argues that municipali-
ties have no Inherent power in these
cases and that their ordinances and res
olutions must be adopted in due form of
law, and that they must keep within
them afterwards. A number Of author
tiles are cited ia the opinion to bear out
this principle.
Says Judge Cardwell "The question
here is, ss we have seen, whether the
ordinance by which the assessment is
per frontage is sustained by section 80
of the charter of Alexandra; which
section authorizes an assessment on the
property benefited, and clearly means,
I think, that the assessment is to be
made in accordance with the peculiar
benefits sccruing to the property as
sessed by reason of the improvements
certainly not in excess of such bene-
fits"
A number of authorities are here re-
ferred to, and Judge Cardweu
| concludes ''It may be that
the assessment upon the property
| of the appellants per front foot
does not exceed the peculiar bene-
[ fits to their property. They deny that
it has been benefited at all, and there
is no proof on the subject, but this is
ministerial to a decision of the ques-
ton here. 1t is clear to my mind that
where the statute confers such power
| and limits it's exercise to the benefits
by the improvements to the property
| assessed, or is not broad enough to
be considered as by fair intend
ment to confer upon the authori-
ties of the city the power to select
the mode of assessment, an assess-
ment per frontage is an unwarranted
assumption of benefits and does not