The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-11-12
SUSTENTION OF THE LAW
BARRETT PAVING STATUTE UPHELD
By CIRCUIT JUDGE CHASE.
Chambers Appears In Clay County and
Dfphtheria Il Malignant I'm Clinton
SMALLPOX Scare Subsidies.
speelal 70 the Indianapolis Journal.


LOGANSPORT. Ind, Nov. H. - Judge
Dudley Fl. Chase. OF the Cass Circuit Court,
has rendered a decision that is of interest
throughout Indiana. in that 1t sustains the
constitutionality of the Barrett street-im-
p-ovement law. over which so much discus
sion has been INDUCED in OF late. Last
spcing Sycamore street, in this city. was
paved with brick, the contract being let
by the City Council 10 the Lux & Talbot
Stone Company. After the work had been
completed property owners along the line
OF the improvement objected to the payment
of their assessments under the law, claiming
that the work had not been done in strict
accordance with the contract. The COM
planning property owners were given hear
ing by the Council. but their objections
were by that body overruled and the final
estimates of the engineer allowed. The
property owners then resisted the collec-
ton Of the assessments against them, and
the Lux & Talbot Stone Company began
suits against the individual proptkty own
ers TO enforce payment. The decision rem
dered by Judge Chase was a ruling on the
demurrer 10 the complaint in the first of the
series Of these suits. The contention of the
counsel for the defendant was that the stat
ute OF Indiana under which the assessments
lowing reasons:
First-Because it provides for the assess
ment being made by the front foot instead
or according to benefits.
Second That there is no tribunal wherein
The property owner can be heard
Judge Chase heard full arguments upon
these questions, and reviewed the cases and
the statute at length i'm his decision. He
decided the points IN the inverse order of
tHelr statement. Taking up the statute, he
pointed out that in the first instance upon
oeciaratory resolution for doing the work
being enacted. notice must be given to the
properly owners fixing a time and place
wien ana ~nere they may be heard as to
Inc necessity for the Improvement: then
after the work is done anu the assessments
Inaue, notice must again be given, and the
property owner Is entitled TO be heard, and
the Council may alter or amend the report
as IL sees mt: thus the Common Council of
S cry o. town: the jury of the taxpayers or
properly owners choosing passes upon the
question twice. The court here adyerted TO
the wisdom and necessity of the selection of
dscreet and reliable men for councilmen
who. by the legislative act are made the
friers OF these and kindred questions. Judge
Chase thus held that the statute is not
open 10 the objection that there is no op-
portunity for a hearing. and that if there
were not some such provision, and if the
contention OF the defendant that the hear
true one, il would so hamper the pro-
cedure that few. IL any, improve
ments would be made. He next pointed
out the rulings of the different courts
upon the question OF the proper mode of
making assessments for street improve
ments under different statutes; some hold
ing TO the front-foot theory. some to the
theory OF ben efits received from the i'm
provemenC; and still others to a general tax
assessed upon all the property of the city
or town. He analysed all these theories
and pointed out that the front-foot theory
mad been accepted in Indiana without ques-
ton or Its constitutionality. since the adop-
ton or the Constitution of 1852 and that
with reference to the particular act known
as the Barrett law the taxing district is
by the Legislature not limited to the front
1eet only, but that other property may be
vestinS in the local tribunal the Common
back the assessment should be made not
exceeding 100 feet, precisely the same as
In case OF a limi. for taxing to construct
gravel roads. the principle as to fixing the
taxing district being the same. and a mat
ter in the exclusive domain of the Iegis-
lature. He pointed out that the Norwood
vs. Baker cas-. about which was heard so
much as affecting street improvements in
Indiana, IS not at variance with our stat
ute and system OF making improvements.
and that the complaint is not open TO any
or the objections urged against Ii: and that
IN any event, a circuit court should not de-
clare statute duly enacted by the I,egisIa-
ture to be unconstitutional unless there is
no doubt about it: and that with reference
20 this particular statute IL appears to COM
ply with all the requirements of the Consti-
luton, as these requirements have been de-
nned by the court of last resort