The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-01-20
Improvement
OF HIGHWAYS.
Cost Cannot Be Legally As
sessed ON Abutting Owners.
MAYORS MESSAGE TO BOARD.
AdrIsed Passage Of a Different Bill From
That Now Before Assembly.
CORLISS HEIGHTS SCHOOL SITE.
Mr.. Freeman Conlended Thai Price Asked City
For II Is 0uiragsousg High Action on Matter
Postponed Until Next Meeting.
AdrIssd Passage Of a Different Bill From
That Now Before Assembly.
coRllSS HEIGHTS SCHOOL SITE.

The meeting of the board of alder
men yesterday was chiefly devoted 10
routine matters. There was little
breeze over the purchase OF lot or
land for school purposes in Ward .,
but apart from the interesting message
of his honor, Mayor Baker there was
but little of special interest in the
meeting.
The mayors message was as follows:
Gentlemen of the City Councils:
In my Inaugural Message to the City
Council in January of 1898. / gave some
consideration to the subject of high
ways and the various methods of pay
ing for the cost of building them, and
for the reasons stated therein / was in
clined towards the method of assessing
the cost of building streets to the
abutting owners. In June last, a joint
resolution of the City Council was
passed, directing the city solicitor to
make application to the Central AS
semby for the passage of such legis-
lation as would authorize the city
Council to assess the cost OF building
streets to the abutting owners. and
bill was prepared and introduced into
| At the time L made the recommenda-
tons aforesaid, / had given the subject
as much study as l could in the limit
| ed time at my disposal, and believed
that / was right In the matter.
/ had no doubt at all of the constitu-
tionality of law which would confer
upon this city such right. and think IL
F.! was generally understood among those
| who were familiar with the decisions of
| the courts at that time, that such
constitutionality had become estab-
f! lished On the 18th day of December
| last. however. the Supreme Court OF
| the United States handed down deci-
sion in tho case OF the village OF NOR
| wood (Ohio) versus Baker, in which
| the principal was declared, by ma
| jority of the court, that such legsla-
| ton Is unconstitutional, on the ground
| that IL permits taking of taking
| property for public purposes without
| just compensation. The court in that
| opinion says: ''ln our judgment. the
\ exaction from the owner of private
| property OF the cost OF "a public i'm
| provement i'm substantial excess of the
| special benefits accruing TO him is, To
| the extent OF such excess, taking un-
| der the guise of taxation of private
property for public use without COM
| pensation."
In another part of the decision, the
lon who while acknowledging that con-
| trary legislation Is still upheld in most
| OF the states, says: but since the pc
| riod when express provisions have been
made in many state constitutions re-
quiring uniformity and equality OF
| taxation, several courts OF great re-
spectability whittier by force of this
requirement or In the spirit OF II. and
perceiying that special benefits actual
ly received by each parcel OF contrib
uting property was the only principle
upon which such assessments can just
ly rest and that any other rule is un-
| equal. oppressive and arbitrary, have
! denied the unlimited scope OF legisla-
| tive discretion and power and asserted
what must upon principle be regarded
as the Just and reasonable doctrine.
that the cost OF u local Improvement
can be assessed upon particular prop
erty only 20 the extent that IT is spe-
cially and peculiarly benehted ana
| since the excess beyond that Is the
benefit 10 the municipality at large Ii
must be borne by the general treas
ury," and seems to base its decision
upon the soundness of this latter doc
trine.
have considered this opinion to-
gether with the city solicitor and we
are satisfied that it will be useless to
attempt To have passed by the General
Assembly the Act now pending before
| IL. This does not mean, however. thai
~ IL necessary for the city TO return
10 the former method OF paying out
, of the general treasury the entire cos
| OF building streets because the opinlor
| OF the Supreme Court distinctly de
clares that law permitting the as
e sessment of such part OF the cost al
e | may amount To the actual benefits con
2 ferred upon the abutting owners Il
I, constitutional.
! The Court saws: Undoubtedly abut
I ting owners may be subjected To spe
- cial assessments TO meet the expense
= to opening highways ln front OF thei
property-- assessment according
Z In well established principles rcstlnl
upon the ground that special burden
may be imposed for special OF pcculia
i benefits accruing from public Improve
n ments."
" for that the city Council vote to re
e scind the resolution OF June last. ask
n ing the city solicitor TO obtain fror
the General Assembly the power 60 as
sess the Whole cost OF building street
q upon the abutting owners. and that
y pass another resolution directing hir
20 TO make application TO the General As
!, sembly for the passage of such legis
u lation ms viii authorize the city Cour
{. ell OF the CITY OF Providence to asses
IN such part OF the cost of building street
hereafter 20 be accepted and built,
the abutting owners as may equal IN
benefits conferred upon said abuttin
~ owners by such public improvement
/ An Act like this would he OF great az
IA ! slstance 10 the city treasury and at n
a, same time do away with the objectio
=, TO the other method. as claimed. thi
'lt Il irrposes great hardship upon u
vo abuttinR owners
The resolution accompanying th
message has been prepared by the ci
solicitor. and recommend its ado
OF | tiOn. Respectfully.
an WILLIAM g. BAKER. Mayor.