The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-06-03
nUxuCIPAL sxyUsTICE.

=
slisAing Arm recently contained very
sensational article on compelling mu-
Inequalities to do justice. II deals with
d Decided evil. but 1t has gone to an
iaxt1Ame which II neither justified by
Ithe circumstances nor in keeping with
49, apisit pf the decision Of the United
states supreme court. which has elicit
- @ much comment al over the eoun-
~. That decision did not state any new
3rineiple I'm Jurisprudence. but the ex-
eitenisnt It occasioned was due to TT
tathsr ngorobs application.
Y The publication In question says that
De most caring instances of municipal
injustice which have ever been sane
toned hxsAhs courts have besS,iG IN
anatter Of special assessments for pub
&c improvements when these were not
based on equivalent special benefits:
md II adds: THE death knell of that
Mjustice seemed to have been sounded
~ the decision in Norwood versui
Baker" Il adds that: 1T nay soIne-
times impose considerable burden up
on municipality to do justice in mat
ters Of this kind: but that burden viii
be slight compared with the cyl which
any government by the people must
sustain b. deliberate abandonment Of
Justice
.rhc comment made Is fair enough,
but, unfortunately, the courts have by
their sweeping decisions fiuc,uated be-
tween two extremes. On the one hand
they have decided that an assessment
should be sustained no matter how I'M
just II might seem to he. and on the
other hand they have held out posi-
tise premium to what Is little short Of
rascality. Under some decisions. prop
erty-owners deliberately set about hav-
ing improvements made with the pre-
meditated purpose 81 heating the
city" as they regard 1t. Property-ow
ess are permitted by courts 10 stand hy
and see money expended in the Inn
provement Of their property without re-
uonstrance or objection. and when 4,
n completed. 10 take advantage Of the
nimsiest technicaiity 10 escape paying
one dollar. The effect Of this view al the
law is more ubiquitous than the evil 81
which the publication complains.
The misfortune Is tina; courts have not
taken a medium course, and refused Ia
release property owner, who has al
ready had his opportunity. provided by
the law. to b. heard In renaonstranee a,
time when II is possible To avoid the
expense. One Who has atnal kaowl
edse Of a proposed Improvement ana ..
the intended assessment OF his property
for II. and who fats 20 take steps &
prevent the work being done, should
be required to show some very gool
reason before a court will set aside q
clear Law on the subject
So far a. the United States supreme
coarr decision - concerned. while I, lays
down a general principle. the fact 81 shs
matter Is that assessment by the sror,
foot is about the most just that can b.
adopted. In the case Of a street. say
ten blocks icns. With holes in ore par,
and hills In another. and a level Patch
between, bat which Is Inaccessible nn
less the hole BE- Aisva up ar .ssr hin be
graded down. II would be almost I'm,
pessssse 20 assess with precise aeSurae,
the special benefit derived BY each lss
Every piece OF property on the stree,
n benefited by having q slightly an
convenient stree, scsas 10 and past II
II would be snsnsfessiy unfair to eharx,
20 enc lot The n'lsng ln Of deep hei,
which shuts OF access 70 property he
pond u. and II would he equally ansal,
not 70 make ncminaa charge on the 10
asstsias 60 Che lsvea. hscaase Il had q