The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-07
WHAT COPELAND DID
1T BEARS NO GREAT WEIGHT
WITH THE DISTRICT
COURT
REAssEssMENT IS NOT VALID


Such Is the Decision of Judge Lewis
in the Long-Pending Action In
voIving a Board of Public Works.
Reassessment for Work Which
Copeland Had Begun Without
Proper Authority of Law.
Judge Lewis yesterday filed decision
in district court denying the appeal of
City Treasurer Horst for judgment against
certain real property, by virtue of as
sessment warrants, for reassessment for
constructing a sewer on Wood street,
from Starkey street to South Robert, On
South Robert street, from Wood to Delos,
and on Colorado street, from South Rob
ert to Clinton avenue.
Five of the property owners objected
on the ground that the assessment was
originally made by John Copeland, act
ing as commissioner of public works, VINO
was thrown out of Office by the supreme
court. 1t is the first decision of the
kind, and would affect all the improve
ments ordered by Commissioner Copeland
were 1t not for the fact that In nearly
every other case the property owners
paid without protest.
In the memorandum accompanying the
decision Judge Lewis says in part: This
is an application for Judgment on an
attempted reassessment for an improve
ment made while so-called commissioner
of public works assumed to act In an
Office, the law creating which has been
kefd void by the supreme court. Inc
original assessment for this Improvement
was held invalid because certain acts IN
reference to such improvements required
by the city charter to be done by the
board of public works were not performed
by said board, but were done by such
commissioner, so acting, without legal
right, and his acts in reference to the
original assessment were void, among
other reasons. because, under the charter,
the board of public works was the only
agency through which the city snould
have acted in making this Improvement.
"The charter provisions providing for
reassessment are based on the authority
of the city to first make an original as
sessment If there be nc, ground Tor an
original assessment, then the steps lald
down in the charter for the inception al
an Improvement have not been observer
and it is invalid. On the other hand, 1t ls
not a reassessment because this improve
ment was never made by the city, III cor
temptation of law, and no original as
sessment was ever authorized by law.
Counsel for the city contend that this
annlicstion need not relate back to the
inception of the Improvement; that the
board of public works, finding an I'M
provement in state which is admittedly
a benefit to the adjacent property owners,
have the right to adopt it and levy an
assessment for the benefit it confers, the
same as if the board Of public WORKS
had ordered it there in the first instance
The mere statement Of this propositlon
would seem to be sufficient to rerute IT,
for. were it true, the city would be at the
mercy of contractors, putting In alleged
improvements, in the making OF wh iaa
property owners would nave no aoioe'
It is useless to argue this proposition'
however, because the charter OF 81:
Paul nowhere authorizes the board OIL
public works to so act. FOR the re-
sons above stated the application is de-
nied.H