Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-01-04
Eichelbergers Ruling Was Not a
Surprise.
THE PEOPLE WERE LOOKING FOR 1T
Ever Since the Norwood Case Was De-
cided by Supreme Court Ii Has Been
Felt Special Assessment LAW
Would Prove InsnfIicient.

Dss Moines, Dec. 3O.-Des Moines at
itorneys were not at all. surprised ut
the decision recently rendered by
Judge Eichelberger of the district
court of Wapello county in which the
paving law was held unconstitutional.
Since the village of Norwood VS.. Baker
an Ohio case, was decided by the SUI
preme court of the United States in
favor of Baker, and the Ohio public
improvement assessment law held I'M
constitutional, this decision has been
expected as soon as a parallel case
was brought in an Iowa court. 1t
happened that the Ottumwa case was
the first one in which the same ques-
tons were raised, though an effort
was made to inject them in a case from
Des Moines in the supreme court of
the United States and in a paving as
sessment case in the local courts, both
attempts failing.
In the Norwood case Baker owned
tract of property which cut street
in the village of Norwood so it was nee
essary to go around block TO get
from one part of the street to the 9TH
err. The village condemned a right-of-
way across the Baker property and as
sessed the cost of opening the street on
front foot basis against Baker. Ba-
ker objected to the assessment on the
ground that it amounted to the confis-
cation of private property for public
use without just compensation, and
claimed further that the cost of open
ing THE street should be pro rated
along the entire thoroughfare in pro-
portion TO the benefits derived bv the
property, rather than to the property
Immediately abutting the new section
of street. The supreme court sus-
tanned this position as well as the 9TH
er contentious raised by Baker.
Local attorneys have maintained that
the same rule must apply to all Iowa
special assessment laws which are on
the front foot plan. For example, one
attorney is quoted as saying that the
assessment for paving on Sixth avenue
from Grand avenue north is illegal un-
der the decision in the Norwood case.
The property along this street is all
used for residence purposes. Some of
the lots have a frontage of fifty feet
and some of 100 feet on Sixth avenue.
1t is his position that the owner of a
100-foot lot will derive no greater ben
eft than the owner of the fifty-foot
lot, and that his assessment, therefore,
must not be greater.
Another attorney said: sFor exam
pie, take thoroughfare like Locust
street and say that a contract is let
for paving it from Fourth street west
to Fifteenth. The property as far west
as Tenth street is used for business
purposes and the rest for residence pur-
poses. No one will deny but the bust
ness property will derive the greatest
benefit and that means that under this
decision it will have to stand the brunt
of the assessment
Still another attorney said: SIT is
my opinion that under this decision on
ly portion of the cost of paving can
be assessed to abutting property and
that the rest must be paid for by paw
ing district tax or by general levy
for that purpose. Take the paving on
Sixth, Forest avenue and Twentieth
streets, for instance, and the property
owners abutting are not the only per-
sons benefited. People with property
on neiohboring unpaved streets who
turn in on. the pavement and use it are
benefited and should pay for the bene-
fits they derive, but in the case of the
particular streets [ cite maintain that
all property in Highland Park is
greatly benefited and should share the
expense of the paving on Sixth avenue,
while in the case of Forest avenue and
Twentieth street the big brick and
coal companies operating plants be-
You'd the end of the pavement and who
use it for teaming, are especially bene-
flied and should pay their proportion
ate share of the cost. Clearly, the Wa
pello county decision means that all
persons benefited shall share the cost,
and it is going to be hard matter to
arrive at this. Unless the legislature
provides a new law this winter it is my
honest opinion that it will not be safe
to lay down paving in the future ex-
cept where the AUDITING property own
ers petition for it. My idea is that the
| : : ! .