The Saint Paul globe., 1898-04-28

Judge Collins yesterday handed down
a decision declaring the, water front
age tax law constitutional
The Robert P. Lewis company
brought action against the county of
Ramsey to restrain 1t from declaring
delinquent taxes on about sixty-five
acres of land on Dale street, near Front
the property as a water frontage tax.
for a conduit laid in 1887
No assessment was made against the
property at the time when the main
was laid, and when the assessment was
made in 1895 and became delinquent in
1897 suit was commenced by the owner
Of the property.
ing such water frontage tax is not un-
constitutional on the ground that 1t
sets a uniform rate of assessment on
all lands within the city limits.
The court further holds that it is the
prerogative of the legislature to pre-
scribe the manner and mode of taxa
ton, except where it is In conflict with
the constitution.
The decision Of the court is quite a.
victory for Ramsey county, as It has
fought the case UP through the courts.
and 1T sets a precedent regarding the
levyfng Of the water frontage tax and
sustains the city in every particular.
The syllabus of the opinion is as fol-
lows:
In re delinquent taxes in Ramsey county ON
real estate for 1895, Ramsey County plaintiff.
vs. Robert P. Lewis Company, defendant.
l. Sec; 26, ch no. SD: 1885. Municipal Code
City of St. Paul, sec. 1874, generally known az
not unconstitutional or void, on the ground
that it applies uniform rule of assessment
as to all lands within the city limits
T. The legislative power in respect to tax
DrODPrlV pXerciaad uho
of assessment annually at 10 per cent per lin
ca! foot of frontage was arbitrarily fixed in
said section and the. city authorities were
compelled to make such assessment.
3. The word lot, found iIf said section 26
is synonymous with the words tract or
parcel" A tract or parcel Of land of sixty-
and alleged to be vacant unoccupied nastu.s
land" is assessable under the statute when
water pipes or mains have been laid in the
streets opposite the same. rs
4. Nor can it escape assessment and tava
ton under said section upon the sole ground
that the water pipe Is conduit placed in
tne street nte solely ely for the purpose Of conducting
ground that the city authorities have denieG
the owner the privilege,of having If tanned
Ior the purpose of supplying the land with
o. The land in question abutted on Front
street, on the south for $50 feet and ahuttad
on Dale street on the west, for over C00
sess lae authorities when making the as
as II 100 feet Of the south end had been plat.
Tsdrt sea and subdivided into l8ts fronting % on
rea fe street. and assessed the tract for $50
5ooa, 5o1ore m laid IN that street They then de-
Quoted $50 feet from the frontage upon Dale
sure street 1 and assessed for the number Of lineaI
then on that street. oi inain
SC aeid to be erroneous upon the ground that
sdered ar part of naaea the land was treated
sessing frontage upon both streets the " whoIo
snouid AnS . have been so treated and considered
sasasd ane dfurther that if the tract is to be aa.
susseo sas as II plated the owner is entitled to
o., ouon ueuuctlCns as would have to be made
On account of streets intersecting Front aod and
Daie II the tract was actually plated ''-io -''
si,j Col MS j.