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

species of property from which tax
may be collected shall be taxed higher
than any other species of property of
equal value"
5. The City Council of Alexandria
did not have the authority under the
provisions of the SD section Of the
charter to pass the ordinance get forth
in the bill, and the ordinance is in con-
fict with the charter, and is null and
void.
The court begins its consideration of
the case by asking Of itself the cues
tion: "Can an assessment for q local
improvement be enacted by q muni-
cipal corporation, until the person OF
whom it is exacted ahall have bad
opportunity to appear and contest u G
legality, justice, and correctness CT the
proposed assesment?n The section of
the Alexandria charter and the ordi-
nance under which this controversy
arises do lot provide, the opinion says,
for any notice to the owners of the lots
abutting on Alfred street. The court
takes the ground that it is sufficient to
say that ell the authorities agree that
due process of law requires that per-
sou shall have reasonable notice, and O
reasonable opportunity to be heard be-
fore an impartial tribunal before any
binding clause can be passed affecting
his right to liberty or property. In
every instance where the rights of
property are involved, before the liza
bility of the taxpayer is finally deter
mined, he must have some kind of
notice of the proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard with reference
to the value of his property and the
amount of the charge. This and many
other such rules are laid down by the
court, with the proper quotations.
Referring to the cases previously de.
cided by this court, including those Of
the city of Norfolk against Ellis, Sands,
receiver, against Richmond city, and
others, Judge Csrdwell, in his able
treatment OF the question involved,
says: SIN neither of these cases was
the question as to whether the assess
ment was in conflict with the federal
constitution raised or discussed, except
in the case of Davis against the city OF
Lynchburg. In that case Judge Lacy
delivered the opinion, and in discussing
the question that no provision was
made for the person to appear and con-
test the proceedings, and that thus de-
prived him of his property without due
process of law, says: "While the cases
cited by counsel for Davis held that the
ordinance was unconstitutional, yet as
an original question, it is obvious that
all possible notice is given by the prog
ress of the work itself, and under our
system OF laws every citizen is held
charged with the notice Of tho public
law. In the abstract this latter prop
osition is sound, but do not think that
the first can be maintained by reaEon
or authority. 1t is not enough that the
owners of property affected by local
assessment may by chance have notice,
or that they may, as matter OF favor,
have q hearing. The law must require
notice to them, and give them rig ght
to hearing and an opportunity to be
heard.
'sThe object of the Constitution in re-
curing notice and the opportunity to
be heard is that man may be able to
protect himself from wrong. What op-
portunity is afforded him of doing 80 by
seeing work being done on the street in
front Of his property, when neither be-
fore nor after the passage of the ordi-
nance is he given an opportunity to be
heard, as to the legality of the ordi-
nance, or the charge against the lien
upon his property by the work being
done? While he may be held charged
with notice of public law, he cannot
be held SO charged by law that is un.
constitutional.
Upon this question I am of opinion
that where statute. e., the charter
of municipal corporation-authorizes
an assessment of any part of the costs