The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-25

| ShdIteI, IL COncluslNo OF lne pEopIlely VI
| the Improvement and of the question of
benefit to the owners of ahuttlng proper
| "" In that opinion this court followed
the great weight OF authority by which
| this extraordinary power has boon sus-
tanned With remarkable unanimity. But IN
the cage of the Village Of Norwood VS..
| Bake, liz U. S.. recently decided by the
| SUI RENE court OF the United States, the
| rule announced In Adams vs. Fisher has
teen completely overturned and all prece-
dents establishing It have been set aside.
We recognize the binding force of the de-
| cision of the supreme court of the United
States upon this question, but we the more
readily apply 1t because we indorse 1t as
timely and just announcement OF the SUI.
periority OF constitutional guaranty over
a rule OF law established by the courts,
We feel some satisfaction also in the fact
! that the constitution of this State pro-
| vides with equal fullness for the protection
| OF the rights of property under such cir
| cumstanees as does The constitution of the
| United States ard II the action now un-
dergoing investigation lie yolatve OF the
constitution OF the United States, 1t is
more palpably a violation of The palmer
| provisions of the constitution Of the State
Of Texas.
| The FIRST question Is what scope are we
| to give to the case OF Norwood VS.. Baker
as authority in the decision OF this case?
| Counsel for Storrle have presented an able
ana ingenious argument IN when they en-
laeaNor TO limit norwood vs. Baker by
contrasting 1t with previous decisions OF
the same court. and by nscribing to the
former decisions superiority, they seek to
eliminate from the latter case every point
I which contradcts a former decision. Ii
is claimed that because the court says
Norwood VS.. Baker is not IN conflict with
the former decision, that court did not in
"a do hat ,-=l,t ,I to- L.,
fict. The more reasonable conclusion IS
that the court did not understand the
former cases to embrace the grounds upon
which the later case rests The case
mainly relied upon for this purpose is
psreona ye tho DtetrIct ~ Coiun,tt, t-n
u. s. AZ IN which fhe ossessuent was
made nv an act NJ conpress wbue in the
cnse oF Norwood va pal,sr a. ,vaa made Nv
rnunicipaI corroratior ,,,,a,.,. A., .ot ~ ~.
, IcpiaIat,Ira Tn tbo forn,ar casa ~ " aorrt
distinrntsbes M tu,o ciessos u, ~, 81
I1,,;l i.,, INV, lins'es ia tne 10
forcnea bat,ssen cav ~ oss.a,r,a,,t ~
sorI,od ~, Ia.,;at a. '5
I o,,,hortt' 80 ooHS "'ine ~
: $500 ~ , se 49, az o"o iiii-
49, i.., olp"' Suip"Ia"on autihe
800 ' stes auu ueigSale9 authorlVy'
~ ~ is sun w'uer petwNen
ia iesis'a'lVe act making an assessment
nilu tne action Oh mere luhcuonarles whose
authority Is derived from municipal or
U'nauces' me distinction drawn may 81
De SOUND out the statement shows that
the question decided IN Norwood vs.. Baker
was not determined in the case relied
5 upon.
J Norwood VS.. Baker establishes the fol-
I lowing propositions which are applicable
: to the case at bar:
g L. The legislature OF a State can not
authorize a munlcipal corporation TO as
g sess upon ahutting property the cost of a
1fu nj n F.aA.. III
r exceeding the special benefits which that
, properly may derive from the work. The
r court said In our Judgment, the ex-
q action from the owner OF private property
), OF the cost OF pubic Improvement In
o substantial excess OF the special benefits
4 accruinR to him IL, 10 the extent OF such
|, excess taxing under the guise OF taxa
r ton OF private property for public use
e without compensation. 1t has been uni
v tormly held mat such assessments rest
y upon the ground that the benefits con
( Ierfed are equal 10 the demands made upof
|, the properly put the courts, IN applying
v tne law 10 the particular cases, nave here
!. tolore Ignored the principle upon which
4 the authority rests and have held tha
h the exercise OF the power VIII be upheld
although the facts out of which 1t arise.
y do not exist, ana that benefits will BIZ
10 presumed 70 equal the assessment
IN q Inc legislature OF state can no
IA confer upon municipal corporation th'
~ authority to make such assessment con
va elusive upon the owner without giving
~ an opportunity to contest the question o.
- benefits. Upon that point, the court said
- AS already Indicated the principle under
- lying special assessments TO meet the cos
4, OF pubic improvements Is that the prop
~ erty upon winch they are imposed Is pc
a euliarly benefited and therefore the own
- ers DO not IN tact, pay anything In eXces:
s. OF what hey receive by reason OF suct
IL Improvement But the guarantees for the
= protection of private pia.erty would be
> seriously impaired 1t II we're establishtt
as rule OF constitutional law that the
"a imposition by the Legislature upon par.
10 tleular private property OF the entire cos
u OF public Improvement, irrespective of any
IN peculiar beneht accruing to the owner from
q, sueh Improvement could not be questioned
by him In the courts OF the country. II is
ID one thing Tor the legislature to prescribe
re II as general rule that property ahut.
I'd ting on street opened by the public shall
lie he deemed TO have been specially benefit
l. Cd by sueh Improvement and therefore
re should specially contribute to the cos
10 incurred by the public. 1t is quite diff
10 lerent thing to lay down as an absolute
D. rule that such property, wheti % 1t is In
"a Iaet benefited or not by the opening Of
. EtlQHf an hn Fra,