The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-07-12

benefited to an amount sufficient to BAY the
cost OF the park. If such is the case special
TS,s rast could not be made for this park
opinion, and If. as /, as the court instead Of
t th board OF public works. had the decision Of
IN st. Paul speeaRg eGu 10 ss
e efta s9mcient to pay the cost Of this park,
par fund ! should without hesitation, de-
comparatively so little. IL at all, of local
character that g large part, II not ALL Of the
S: any sh ohsr be PAID public 5 as m the
r me oenents OF SUCH park. as place Of
Fecreat.eeIl Tor all the people, are undoubted
out the special benefits to property adjoining
must be. on an enhanced value to such prop
erty by reason. of the Improvement, are, If
they exist at all, .of vague and uncertain
character and very difficult to fix and appor
tion. Certain property may be enhanced in
value, and other property in the same locality
not enhanced or even injured the result
raphy. or use to which each tract Is adapted.
believe that the difficulties in this case
arise arr more from the natural impossibility Of
tent sufficient to pay the cost, than from the
methods used in making the assessment. In
ot ntho words. the difficulty in finding legal
There Is evidence in the case Of other facts
connected with the action Of the board In
determining the district that supports the
conclusion above reached that the board acted
arbitrarily and upon an erroneous rule of
law. refer particularly to the omission from
the district of property In the Indian Mound
omitted because enough money had been
raised strong proof that the action of the
BOARD was governed by its desire to extend
the district until enough money had beea
raised to pay the cost of the park is furnished
In 8, contemplation of the great area included
IN the outer zone" assessed at the uniform
M md limo INF ba ~,
required had been assessed.
q The objections that no finding or deter
mination was ever had or made by the board
That property could be found especially bene-
fitted to the extent of the cost of the pro-
posed improvement and that no determine
ton was ever made that property within the
district was specially benefited to the ex-
tent and in the proportions as assessed have
received careful consideration. l am by no
means prepared to say that the latter, at
least, of these objections is not we'll taken.
The records of the board do not affirma-
lively show that this determination was made;
there is nothing to show that it was, ex-
action of the board in fixing the district and
spreading the assessment. How far this pre-,
sumption extends and whether or not 1t
has been rebutted by the evidence are ques-
tons I deem it unnecessary to determine
Either the board never made such determin-
alton, or, if made, its action must be set
aside for reasons before stated. In either
case the same result is reached.
8. Even if it could be held that the &C
ton of the board in fixing the limits of the
district should not be disturbed, the cyl
dence satisfied me that in spreading the
assessment the board adopted an arbitrary
method proceeded upon an erroneous prlnci-
pie of law, and committed demonstrable MS
takes of fact, within the decisions have
reached this conclusion from the testimony
relating to the manner in which this assess
ment was made, and careful consideration
Of the facts and of the decisions OF our SUI
preme court. 1t is unnecessary to here en-
ter into discussion of the evidence of or
the decisions, or to state my reasons in de-
tail.
Though I have considered all of the OBJ
jectons raised and argued by counsel, 1t
is unnecessary to discuss the others. l have
Intentionally declined to make findings OF
fact as the law does not require them IN
these special proceedings, and consider it
better practice to leave the parties or re-
view of the case by the supreme court un-
hampercd by an erroneous finding or by the
omission of any finding.
In conclusion, I desire to thank the coun-
sistance afforded me by the exhaustive and
very able briefs submitted.