The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-08-01
MAY CARRY TT HIGHER.
Liberty street Paving Case May BE
Taken to Federal Supreme Court.

mere - Yet a pAN'AeAbA4AN9 NAAe't NA+N A%A'
erty street paving case has not come to
an end. Three times il has gone to the
Supreme Court Of Georgia, and now it
may 90 to the Supreme Court of the United
states on a constitutional point To the
highest tribunal in the land it may be
carried on a writ Of error based on The
assumption that property has been taken
from the abutting property owners with
out due process Of law.
The fourteenth amendment 10 the con-
stitution Of the United States provides
that no state shall deprive any citizen
Of life, liberty or property without due
process Of law If the case in question
is carried UP to the federal Supreme Court
it viii be upon this provision. The claim
viii be raised that the abuttng property
owners on Liberty street have been de-
prived of their property by an unlawful
assessment for the paving of that thor
oughfare. Some time this week, it is under
stood, there win be a conference of the
counsel for the property owners and the
committee representing the latter, and
then some decision win be reached in the
matter r. r. Richards, Esq, is UNDER
stood to be firmly of the opinion that there
is a ground sufficient to carry the case
to Washington. He and J. R. Saussy Esq,
are counsel for the property owners.
The same point is made in this, as in
well known Atlanta case, which was car
ried to the Georgia Supreme Court. The
city of Atlanta passed an ordinance TO
charge abutting lot owners with the eA-
penses of laying a sewer but failed TO
comply with the requirements as to adver-
Using. When the sewer had been built
the property owners were assessed. one
of them, Mr.. Gabbett, carried the case 70
the Supreme Court which held that the
ordinance under which the work had been
done. was void, and the assessment con
seduently, void. The executions against
the property owners were, accordingly DIS
missed
The legislature. at the request of the
MAYOR and Aldermen of Atlanta, passed
a remedial law, authorizing them to make
a new assessment They did undertake
to reassess and levied on the Holiday
property. The property owner claimed that
this act was unconstitutional under Inc
laws of Georgia, being retroactive in It's
character and making propertr owners
liable for an assessment which the Su-
preme Court had already held they were
not liable for when the work was done
The Savannah case Is regarded as par
allel one.
Under the act of 1877, allowing the city
of Savannah TO pave streets and assess
property owners for the purpose, the cost
to the latter was put at two-thirds, and
all abutting streets and lanes it was de-
clared should be considered the same as
realty and be assessed for their proper
tionate frontage When Liberty street
was paved, il was done differently from
this An ordinance was passed in 1883
providing that the city should pave the
interesting streets, and after deducting
that cost and the cost TO the railroads the
remainder should be divided in three parts,
one-third to he paid by the city and the
other two-thirds by the property owners.
The legality of the ordinance was at
tackled when the assessments were made,
Nudge Falligant dismissed the proceed
ings and the case went up to the Supreme
Court which held that there was euffi-
cient ground for the case to have gone
to trial verdict for the city resulted
in the Superior Court. The cas- then
went to the State Supreme Court for the
second time, and the attention of that
body was particularly called to the fact
that the ordinance under which the street
paving was done did not agree with the
state statute as the abuttlng streets had
not been considered the same as the abut-
that the ordinance should comply strictly
with the act referred to. 1t held that
the ordinances did not comply with the
act and this vitiated the entire proceed
ings.
The assessments were accordingly de
clared void and the executions against the
property owners ordered dismissed. After
rendering the decision the court went or
10 state how, in its opinion, the ordinance
| could be enforced by amending, but dc
not state what the effect would be as re-
CARDS a pavement already laid under {
| defective ordinance. The pavement fac
| been laid in 1889, and in 1888 the CltS
| Council passed an ordinance amending th'
| ordinance of 1883, under which the stree
| had been paved This provided a method
| of assessing in compliance with the law
| The contention of the dot owners then be
came that no subsequent legislation cou1>
| impose a liability for an act done unae
| a void ordinance, and they claimed ina
| under the language of the Supreme Cour
| the city did not have any right TO asses
| and collect from them for the paving
Under the constitutional provision o
! Georgia, prohibiting retroactive legIsla
| ton, it was held by their counsel That TIM
| second ordinance was also void. The Su
| preme Court, when it finally reached then
| the third time, though, held thal whA
| retroactive. this second ordinance did no
| interfere WIN any NSStCN AioHt9 otiN ~
not void 1t is claimed, though, that IN
right of an abutting property owner L
| enjoy his property free from assessment
for local improvements. unless such as
sessments are imposed according to law
is a vested right, and that the remedia
legislation which sought to impose the as
| sessment after the work was done, is un
| constitutional
AS the case now stands the city ca
| nroceed 10 issue executions against tn
delinquent property owners and advertis
and sell their property unless they pa
the assessments against them. If the cas-
is carried 10 Washington and decide
against the city the property owner
could force the city TO pay the none
back
RELICS FOR OGLETHORPEs.