The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-05-08
CITY CHARTER INVALID
BARRETT LAW PROVISION CON-
FLICTs WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
Judge Aliens Decision Brought Anx-
iety to City officials and Con-
tractors-Court News.

Judge Allen yesterday overruled the de-
murrer In the suit of Chester Bradford and
others against the Bermudez Asphalt Com
pany and the City of Indianapolis, to pre-
vent the collection of Barrett law assess
ments IN their property on Twenty-frst
street. between Illinois street and North
western avenue. The action of the court
holds that the Barrett law as applied to the
city charter is invalid. as it provides that
assessments can be made upon the 'front.'
age of property without regard to the
benefits derived. which is at variance with
the State and national constitutions, which
say that a mans property cannot be taken
without just compensation. In the ruling
Judge Allen said:
The complaint and the demurrer there
to present the single question as to the
validity of what is known as the Barrett
law. as contained in the city charter. 1t
seems to me that the recent decision of
the Supreme Court of Indiana in the very
recent case of Adams We. the city of Shell
byville, leaves but q single question for the
consideration of this court in the present
case. After discussing the authorities On
the subject, they refer to the recent de-
cision OF the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Norwood VS.. Baker,
in the following language: While the
facts in the Norwood-Baker case are un-
usual ana QlSllnS ulSndDl from the case at
bar, yet 1t cannot be successfully denied
that the general. doctrine laid down is to
the effect that the imposition of assess
ments for local Improvement per front
foot, irrespective OF the question of ac-
cruing benefits, is a violation of the four
teenth amendment to the Federal Consti-
tuition, and that the case has been SO con-
strued generally by the courts of the
country
1.-The judgment of the Federal Supreme
Court defining the limits of legislative
power sanctioned by the Federal Consti-
tuition is the supreme law Of the land. 1t
State Legislatures. The duty thus i'm
posed is agreeable as being in accord with
our sense of just principles. and furnish
ing the only reasonable foundation for the
exercise of the taxing power in respect to
special assessments.
THE question presented then Is, Does
the law In question require that the cost
of street improvements shall be assessed
foot rule. without regard to the question
of resulting benefts?' To this question
1t seems to me there can be but one an
swer. The statute expressly so provides
and makes no provision for any other
kind of assessments. The city. the people
and the courts have universally acted on
that as the intention of the Legislature. I
do not think anyone who reads the statute
carefully can have reasonable doubt about
the intention Of the Legislature In passing
the law.
I'm such case the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the Norwood-Baker case,
referred to, decides that %injunctions should
be granted without considering whether the
amount is in excess of the special benefits
to the property or not, and that the pay
ment of tender of the amount of benefits
received from the Improvement is not nee
essary In order to obtain an injunction
against ar Illegal assessment. which is
based on a rule or system that has no ref
erence to special benefits. Demurrer over
ruled"
The decision does not conflict with the
recent decision of the Supreme Court, which
sustained the law, as the case in the high
er court related only to property in small
cities where assessments are based upon
the value Of the property and not on the
lineal foot. For a long time the validity
of the city charter in regard to this point
has been In question. and the decision OF
Judge Allen was anticipated by many.
Contractors having Improvement work
under way have been watching the courts
closely in the Barrett law matter and the
decision was received with much anxiety.
Some said that city work will Immediately
be suspended and between 1000 and 5000 will
be thrown out of work during the summer.
The Board of Works awarded no con-
tracts yesterday except those relating to
sewers and work assessed on benefits alone.
City Attorney Kern and Chairman Tanning,
of the Board of Works, said they were
unable to say just what steps will be taken
and that 1t is a question whether work will
be abandoned this summer. 1t is left OPP
tional with the contractors to continue
work. The case will likely go to the SUI
preme Court, and If Judge Aliens decision
is sustained the Legislature will have to
amend the city charter.
Chester w. Bradford, one of the property
owners who brought the suit, said last
night that he did not want to appear in
the light of attempting to block public
improvements, but in the case In point
the case against him was clearly .nequi-
table. His property does not front on
Twenty-first street and, therefore, he says,
he was not benefited, yet his assessment
was six times as much as others whose
property fronted on the street.