Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-08-22
ASSESSOR MAKES REPORT
PASSES UPON OBJECTIONS TO
WATER MAIN ASSESSMENT.
Says Failure to Reassess for Previous
Improvement is No Bar to
Present Tax.

report has just been made to the Com
missioners by the assessor on the ques-
ton of assessing a water main tax on lot
IA, block 10, center of lexington subdivis-
ion, being lot at the corner of 4th and
streets northeast, owned by Francis M.
Cox. The papers in the case show that
this property was assessed for water main
construction in 1894, but the assessment
was Cancelled the next year under the de-
cision of the Burgdorff case. 1t was not
reassessed in 1898, under an act for that
purpose, but has recently been assessed Tor
the laying of a main in street. To this
latter assessment Mr.. Cox has made OBJ
lection in a letter to the Commissioners
and the report of the assessor today Is on
this objection.
Mr.. Cox says:
1.-THE act of July 8, 1898, authorized the
District Commissioners to reassess the tax
thus Cancelled, and provided, In section z,
that outside the city of Washington the
said reassessment shall be levied or as
seSsed only on those lots or parcels OF land
into which Potomac water has been or
shall hereafter be produced, PROVIDED
further that where Potomac water mas
heretofore been introduced, the said re-
assessment shall be made within ninety
days after the passage of this act, ana
where Potomac water shall hereafter De
introduced the said reassesSment shall be
made within thirty days after such intro
duction.'
Clause Not Repealed.
''This clause of section 2 has not been 1e-
pealed by subsequent legislation, and Is
now the law. 1t is declaratory of princi-
pie which runs through all the legislation
of Congress with respect to water main
taxes, and the obvious reason of the case,
viz, that lote should only be- taxed for the
laying of the main from which it derives
it's supply of water The records appar-
emily do not show that the Commissioners
have ever exercised this right thus con-
ferred upon them in regard to the Center
lexington lots, and which, l think, was
intended to be, and was, the only remedy
in the premises.
ut does not appear to me that the Com
missioners, after having waived the eXer-
else of their remedy until the period of
statutory limitation had expired, having
thereby eXOnerated all the lots of block
Is facing on 4th street from the water tax,
should make a punitory example of my let
because it happens to be a corner lot. and
tax it for water main very recently laid
In street. from which it cannot by any
possibility ever derive any benefit. 1t ap-
pears to me that to thus discriminate
against corner lots would be a violation OF
plain equity as well as the letter of those
clauses of the water main legislation which
provides that these taxes shall be uniform
The Assessors View.
This letter was referred to the assessor,
and he has now reported to the Commits
sioners as follows:
1.-The fact that lot IA was not reassessed
under the act of July 8, 1898, for the as
sessment that was declared void, is no
bar to the present assessment levied under
existing laws. The writer is enjoying the
privilege of full water service on a lot on
which the water main tax has not been
paid, and l see no reason for changing my
views upon the subject