The evening times., 1896-07-17
TAXPAYERS WERE HEARD
Objections to ReaSseSsmentS
Presented to Officials.
COURTS MAY BE INVOKED
is Given Was Not Valid-Issue of
Licenses in Long contested Liquor
cases-.rhe Excise Boards Work
Nearly Done.

IDe commissioners gave EcarinS tOuay
to such taxpayers as desired to object
for any reason to the rcassessments levied
under the law referred to in the Morning
Times, which gives authority to tie board
to renew assessments declared void by tie
courts, and linn edhitely there was presented
a phase which will doubtless have to be
determined in tile courts.
Several citizenslfiled protests TO certain
improvements aDd these were recorded,
when Attorneys d. w. Baker and Malcolm
Hufty Appeared, respectively, as the legal
representative Of property owper, and
,noted Il special appearance, each TO Object
to the entire proceedings on jurisdictional
grounds.
Alr baker presented his case, which was
identieiiiy the same as that of MIR. Hufty
and, briefly stated, Is us follows
- reason Oh y decision OF tie court OF
appeals in tie case OF Altman Us. the Dis
trIct, Congress passed law, dated August
Z, 1894, providing that the Commissioners
should give notice OF their intention" To
make improvements, stating the material
to be used. the COST and when and where
the work was TO be done. 1t also provided
for advertising the "intended' improve
ments in some newspaper for twof full weeks.
NOTICE NOT VALID.
notice given, even under the act Of April
"a, 1896, If reassessment for Improvements
already made is hot valid.
= In other words, the notice is not valid
FROM the standpoint OF jurisdiction, and
specially for the Reason that tie property
holders had not two full weeks of notice.
The authority for this last objection is
found in u decision of the United States
Supreme Court, in the case of Roe VS.. Early
,I.,tx -f,f 4 \
provides that in all cases Of assessments
quashed upon technical grounds there shall
be reassessincnt, but, then, the question OF
notice Is not technical, but Jurisdictional,
and the law Is quoted. II says: For any
technical reason, other than tie right OF the
public authorities to levy the tax or make
the improvements"
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.
They say that the sta tutes imposing
special assessments for alley, street, and
sidewalk impro vements upon adjacent
property should he strictly construed, and
that in the levying OF such special taxes
it is Indispensable to the validity of the
act that notice Il some seryiceable stage
OF the proceedings shall he given to the
owners OF the property.
The Commissioners requested Messrs.
Baker and Hufty to file brief, each
setting forth their objections in detail and
this they promised to do.
1t was Stateti by one of the attorneys
today that Attorney Thomas, the District
counsel, holds views exactly in accord with
theirs, and that this will be developed
AZ the proper time. If this be true, there
is prospect than in this instance legislation
has not legisated, and that some othe.
means must be found to cure the defects
in the existing assessment law.
LICENSES ISSUED.
The excise board today disposed OF five
applications for alicense--four for retailing
and one wholesaleF-thercby almost clear
iDgits docket.
Three Of the eases approved have been
made quite prominent by reason of tile dis
cussions. protests and appeals occasioned
by each.
The first to be mentioned of these is the
| application of Joseph Cato, No 500 Z
Street northwest Charges were made
that Mr.. Cato perraitted disrcputablc pco
pie TO coDgregate in his house, and to he
| served with liQuorsfrom his bar. TheIecor,l
| gwen lis place, Was pretty much the same
as that charged against Fred Miller, one
square below, Whose application was re
| jected about ten days ago.
| Mr.. Cato denied the allegations and said
that if such people had been admitted. tc
his premises it'iwas contrary to his orders
! II wrote a letter to the board, stipu!atine =
| that he would in future give strict orders
to serve nobody with liquors at any other
place than the bar, except to regularly
registered hotel guests
GAVE HIM LICENSE.
He succeeded In satisfying the boa rd
and upon condition that all questionable
characters be hereafter risidly excluded
| from his place, the ma iority of the boart
approved of his apnlis alton.
| The other two saloons approved were
| those of Alexis Adt. No. 61O Louisiana
avenue, and j. II. De Alley, No. 1929
Pennsylvania avenue. Both of these had
been held up since November on applica-
| lions for renewals.
The board granted transfer of retail
| license from the estate of John 7. Hof-
| mann to Elizabeth Hofmann, at No. 4O9
| Ninth street southeast, and rejected the
| application for transfer of wholesale
| license from II. l.. Blout, at No. 81 E
street south west, to Arthur E. Dowell
| No. 146S F street southwest.
| There is now but one hold-over case
before the board and but few app,ic;,-
| tions for transfer.