The times., 1897-08-26
THE SINGLE TAKERS HAPPY
Say the Opinion in HyattsvilIe
Case Has Been Nulliiied.
REVIEW OF THE LITIGATION
Fight Made by the Spectators IN
Vacant Lots Against the Effort
to Relieve improvements and Pcs
sonaI Property From Municipal
Taxation and the Outcome OF Ii.

The Hyattsyine and other Maryland
single takers are happy in the heller that
the single-tax movementof 1882 has peeh
vindcated by the Maryland court of ap-
peais and the contentious made by fiji
teen lawyers at the time all virtually al
lowed. As a consequence, the singIe-tax
idea is likely 10 spring into prominence
in MARYLAND again in the near future.
The efforts Of the Hyattsville single
takers in 1892 TO put into operation the
theory that the product and earnings Of
industry should not be taxed made the
name of tsGt village familiar 10 the whole
country. 1t resulted in temporary vic
tory for the advocates of the idea, but
the spectators in vacant lots invoked the
courts in their defense and succeeded in
getting decision which, for the time
being, tied the hands. although ii has
not, up TO this reading, damned the flow
Of oraIory OF the "Jeffersonian Democrats"
as the single-taxers delight 10 call them
selves.
The Hyattsville board of commissioners
In 1892 exempted personal property and
improvements upon land from taxation
locally. Their action was a trial of the
single tax theory as far as municipal taxes
We're concerned. There arose a great OPP
position 10 this ruling of the board, princi
pally from the citizens who had large lots
OF uniInproved land. The factions on the
two sides Of the fight We're about equal IN
numbers, but the oppUne OF the board
Were louder and more vociferous. The city
of Hyattsville was for a time heard from
as often and at even greater length than
Baltimore itself.
1t was finally demanded by the oppoSf'
tion that the hoard either revel sc its sin
gie tax ruling or resign. This the board
refused TO do. Litigation followed, and
a w1t of 14sndamns was applied for in
lhy, S92, TO compel the II yattsville board
TO assess improvements and personal prop
erty as well as the value OF land. 1t was
contended by the applicants for the writ
that the constitution OF Maryland re
quired all property to he assessed and that
the action OF the commissioners in exempt
ing houses and personal property was un-
constitutional.
When the case came before Judge
Brooke, Of the circuit court at Marlboro,
tie Hyattsville commissioners through
their counsel argued that the Maryland
constitution did hot apply 10 muni-
cipalitics. but cnly TO the state govern
nent and its instrumenUalities. Judge
Brooke 70 decided, refusing the writ of
nandamEs.
An appeal was taken and the court Of
appeals also refused the writ for teCiini-
cal reasons, hut gave an opinion tC the
effect that the constitutional provision
eR TO taxes did apply 10 municipalities,
and that the legislature could not exempt
any class Of property and could lot
authorize its exemption by town
government.
THIS knocked out the single takers for
the time, although they applied their
principles for that year, taxing only I'M
Improved real estate The local taxes
Of owners of TINS class of property were
about doubled, aud the improvers We're to
that extent benefited,
MIR. jackson II. RalstOn Of the law
firm OF Ralston & Siddons, was the prin-
opal actor in the Hyausville single-ta y
movement. He and others are now cali
ing attention TO tie new -olume Of MARY
land court Of appeals decisions just issued.
MFR. ReIston said to a Times reporter yes
terday that, in one Of the decisions Of
the volume, the court OF appeals has prac-
ticaHv reversed its opinion in the il HyaIts-
vile case Mr.. Ralston said:
.In a suit in which the town Of Belair,
Nd, was Interested, the court declares
that the Constitution only in general terms
authorizes the creation Of corporations foI
municipal purposes, and leaves 10 the
legislature the enactment of such details
as &c may deem proper in the manage
ment OF the concerns of the corporation,
OF which may be regarded as beneficial
in the government of the same "
..The court again says the constitution
devolvrs upon the general assembly the
entire duty Of giving vitality TO and OF
organizing aud fostering the body coz
porate without any other constitutional
regulation than the method To provide rol
the. system Itself. It is therefore tle mere
creature of legislative sanction and tn,
subject of statutory regulation
--Of course if, as the court now declares
there Is 10 constitutional regulation al
fectIng municipalities and they are merely
tie subject OF statutory regulation, tho
curt erred in 1898 when Il declared The
Hyattsville charter void because it de
parted from the constitutional regulation
as to taxation
Another reason why municipalities are
not subject 10 the constitution, as stated
by the court Of appeals, is because no
where in the constitution are the govern
neDts Of municipalities in this State, ol
their officials, either clothed with power
or designated as any part OF our STATE
government; but their very creation, TO
gether with all the powers and attributes
which attach 10 their management, are
lodged by the constitution with the legisla
tive department OF our State governme Mt
save, in some respects, the city Of Balti
more
Other lawyers seen were OF Mr. Ralston':
opinion as TO the effect of the decision
Just what viii follow the decision it is to.
early to predict, but 1t is highly probable
that In some part Of Maryland the single
takers viii become active again and asl
the legislature TO give some community th,
power 20 exempt the products OF industr
from taxation.
HONESTY USED A RAZOR.