Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-07-21
Authority of the Commissioners to
Levy Assessments Denied
AN IMPORTANT SUIT FILED
A VoIuminous Petition Presenting
Many Serious Issues.
A RE TRA AIMING ORD E Il

petition for writ of prohibition was
filed In the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia this afternoon. praying the
court to restrain the District Commission
ers from hearing and determining any
question in regard to the reassessment OF
certain special assessments or from levying
eny special assessments in cases wherein
certain assessments heretofore made were
quashed by reason of a defective notice or
any notice or publication or want OF au-
thority in the Commissioners to levy the
same. Justice Hagner signed restraining
order returnable August J. The petition is
filed in the name of the United States OF
America on the relation of the City In
vestment Company. Henry ]. Keough. Da-
vid G.. Gottwals, August Kleeblatt, Simon
L. Groot. Lewis Coblens. Martin I-auer,
Patrick Wade Mary Julia Foertsch, George
W. Driver, Charles A. Langley, Willis
Worster. John A. Van Horn, Mary y brien'
John H Rothert. Charles Mackall, John d.
Daley, John r. Sewell, Mary E. Suter, 30
phia H. Herbert. John A Luttrell, trustee.
and Mary Smith.
Points of the Petition.
The petitioners explain that they are
owners Of certain, property in the District
OF Columbia, and add that the Commits
s:cners have certain authority vested IN
them IN regard to the special assessments
and special taxes assessed against prop
erty; that by the act CT August ., 1871
and other acts passed prior thereto the
Commissioners were authorized and en-
powered to improve and repair alleys and
construct sewers and sidewalks; that they
were constituted a board of assessors to
perform such acts as were necessary to
make such improvements: that the act
mentioned enacted that the Commissioners
ST @ tty advertisement
Us SeSSment work proposed to be done by
them, designating the location and kind Of
work 20 be done, the kind of materials TO
be used. &c.
The p-JItloners state that notwithstand-
ing the psreInptory manner of proceeding
in making assessments as provided under
the Law, the Commissioners proceeded to
nake certa n improvements without giving
the proper notice as required: and. further,
the Commissioners assessed certain charges
and special taxes which were null. void and
of 10 effect in law or equity.
Their Authority Denied.
Continuing. the petitioners say that April
- last there was approved an act enacted
solely for the purpose of curing certain
defects that existed previously. and also
any technical defect other than the right
of the public authorities 20 levy the tax or
make the Improvement in respect of which
the assessment was levied; that the act did
III substance. IL the same could be cured.
nor I'D it attempt TO cure any defective no
nee or want OF notice or publication which
TGS q condition precedent TO give the Com
mss oEers the authority to levy the tax.
make the Improvement, and The petition
ers claim that the Commissioners have no
authority under the act to attempt to reas-
stss any taxes or special assessments
which Were absolutely null and void by
r6 6aSSn OF their having been levied 10y the
Commissioners without authority and with
out due process OF law.
Notwiths.andn that the act Of April
81 Oaty bestowed the power upon the COM
II - or ers TO reassess for improvements
and general taxes in certain cases, say
the petitioners. the Commissioners I'M
warrantedy and without authority are
about 10 proceed 20 reassess all special as
sSSsnents for improvements in all cases
in which the taxes We're quashed for want
OF proper authority.
The Commissioners. the petitioners con-
unue. granted them. through counsel, an
opportunity Friday last to state objections.
W lille not deciding the question OF jurisdc-
ton the board gave counsel the right to
file briefs OF or before today. However.
the petitioners say that upon information
they believe that the Commissioners not
v ithst1- ding the law, will attempt to as
sess or make a pretended assessment of
special assessment against the property of
the petitioners.
No Power to Reassess.
In conclusion, the petitioners set forth
that the acts and proceedings of the Com
Iniss.oners without authority Of law
a1I void for further reason that the
Commissioners have In them no power to
reassess any property for any taxes what
ever that have been quashed by the Su-
pre-ne Court of the District of Columbia
and that the act attempting to give them
such power Is vague, meaningless and Of
no effect whatever. and that the condi-
tons and manner of the reassessments
laid down therein are impossible of per-
for!n1nce. in that all the regulations under
eAlsunS laws giving the Commissioners
authority to make any assessment or re-
assessment lay down certain conditions
and proceedings that are conditions prece-
de-it TO the commencement of any work
done under the proposed assessment
In addition to the writ of prohibition
the court Is asked to direct the Commits
s.oners to suspend all further proceedings
IN respect to the reassessments mentioned
until the final order of the court
The attorneys for the petitioners are
Messrs- ID. w Baker. H. NJ Earle and
Malcolm Hufty-
The Monitor Passafc.