The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-14

ting in my case $50 feet of the lot, worth
at that rate s576.65.
This proceeding. paying me for part of
the lot when but $50 feet were left. was
sufficiently extraordinary. The present as
sessments, however, rise into the domain
of the grotesque. They purport to be made
under the act of August I, 1894 concern
ing assessment and permit work, to be
charged in part to abutting property. There
is no doubt that my land is abutting prop
erty. and equally, no doubt, that it abuts
on the sidewalk. In fact, abutting is about
all that it does, or is good for. 1t Adults
on two streets and an alley. If there were
any money in abutting. few properties of
the same size could compare with It.
But is it really supposed by the per-
sons attending to sue, business that Cen
gress intended, by :be act of August Z,
to charge the expense of Improvement TO
people treated and left as / have been
with regard to $50 feet formerly part of
a building lot?
THE statute of 1894 speaks of notice
to lot owners and of lots. II concerns a
system of actual or theoretical permits
to property owners to increase the con-
venience Of their property. by sidewalks
and sewers along the frontage OF IT. Is
it not unjust and absurd to apply such
law to me and my poor $50 feet? l can
not build a house on this property neither
can l use 1t as farm. What possible
utility can sidewalk or sewer have to
It, or its owner? 1t seems to me that
the familiar rule Of Interpretation, that
a thing may be within the letter of the
law. and not within the law, and without
the letter and yet within the law, can
apply to no case IL not to this one.
1T seems also to me that what really
ought to be done, II the Board has the
power. is to pay me S5i6.65; If it has not,
/ think ii ought, at least, see that sewers
and sidewalks are made at the cost Of
the public or of lot owners, and not at
mine.
In order that I may not have to pay
also a penalty of per cent, | have the
honor to request an early examination OF
this matter and answer to this letter.
The opinion of the Attorney is here
given: Il have duly considered the COM
munication of C. w. Russell, in relation
to certain special assessments for side
walks and paving an alley. against part
of sub-lot 100, in square SO, abutting 1i5,33
feet on Newport Place north. ESQ feet Or
Twenty-frst Street, which, with report
thereon by the special assessment clerk,
you referred to me for opinion.
1T is claimed that said part Of sub-lot
1870 is not liable fol assessment for these
improvements; that although the proper
ty abuts the Improvements, and Is, there
fore, within the letter of the act of Con-
gress approved August Z, 1894. providing
the system for special assessments. the
law was not intended to apply to proper
ty under such conditions as exist with
respect to this part Of sub-lot 100.
Assaults have been made upon assess
ments levied under the act of Congress
of August I, 1894, it being claimed that
the assessments thereby authorized are
arbitrary in their nature and not based
upon benefits, but the courts have hith-
erto sustained the constitutionality and
the suficiency of the act of Congress and
the assessments Hereunder.
THE assessments are made by the act
OF Congress lien upon abutting proper.
ty They do not constitute a personal
claim against the owner of the property.
Mr.. Russell was the owner of sub-lOt
1876 when Newport Place was condemned.
The jury of condemnation in the case al
lowed him compensation for the part Of
this lot taken and damages for the small
portion which remained. He acquiesced
in this condemnation proceeding and on
November %, 1888, received payment of
the award.
THE assessments complained OF are, in
my opinion. valid assessments