Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-10-05
WATER MAIN ASSESSMENTS
ATTORNEY REQUESTED TO INTER-
Pref ACT REGULATING THEM.
The Provision for Rebates Under Con-
sideratiOn-BeIief That New Law
Repeats Old One.

| to call upon the attorney for the District
| for an Interpretation of the act of Febru-
airy 81 1891, entitled AN act regulating
assessments for water main in the District
of Columbia" The main question which
the Commissioners are DESTROYS of deter
mining is whether or not the new act does
away with the provision which has been
in force in the District for the past twenty
five years allowing a per cent rebate in
cases where payment of the entire assess
ment is made within thirty days after re-
ceipt of notice thereof, instead of in INSTALL
ments. Capt. Lansing H. Beach, the En-
gineer Commissioner. declares that it was
the intention of the Commissioners, well
as of the committee of Congress, to allow
the rebate to remain in force in the new
law in manner exactly similar to that en-
bodied in the old law. 1t seems, however,
that no mention is made of the provision
for the 6 per cent abatement in the new
law. The collector of taxes is of the opin-
ioE that the new law repeats the old one,
ami has declined to accept a tender in pay
ment of water main assessment from
which the per cent allowed in the past
for prompt payment was deducted.
The tender in question was made by At
torneys C. c. Cole and r. Golden Donald
son. They proffered the sum of S1,U73.1l
in full payment of the assessments for wa
ter main taxes levied against lots owned by
Joseph Speidel of Wheeling, W. Va. in the
ington. The sum entioned was per cent
less than the total amount of the assess
ment, the attorneys claiming this rebate
because of paying within thirty days after
notice, as provided in the acts of June 3d.
1873. and June 2, 1900. The collector re-
fused to accept the sum rendered, saying,
the attorneys declare, that he had been no
titled by the water officer that the act of
1900. allowing the abatement for payment
in advance, had been repealed by the act
of February 81, 1901.
Views of the Attorneys.
I'VE respectfully submit" say the at
torneys in presenting their side of the case
to the Commissioners, that that part of
the act of 1900 providing for the abatement
has not been repealed by the act of 1901.
The latter act repeats only so much of the
act of 1900 as is inconsistent with it. and
there is nothing in the act of 1901 that is
inconsistent with the right to the abate-
ment under the act of 1900. There are only
three changes made by the law of 1901 in
that of 1900 in relation to the assessment,
collection and payment of water main taxes.
The first changes somewhat the method of
giving notice; the second provides for the
payment in three equal installments instead
of four. and the third reduces the interest
to be charged on the deferred installments
from 10 per cent to 6 per cent.
There is not word in the act Of 1901
upon the subject of the right to pay in ad-
vance ana nave the Denent or the abate-
ment, and therefore nothing inconsistent
with such right. This law has been in
force In the District for more than twenty
five years. and is beneficial alike to the
District and the citizen, and 1t cannot be
presumed that Congress intended to change
1t unless language clearly manifesting such
intention had been used. In the absence of
any such language that provision Of the act
of 1850 should be held to be in force. This
is the rule governing in the Interpretation
of statutes"
As Interpreted by Mr.. Davis.
Mr.. E. G.. Davis, the District collector of
taxes. presents his views on the subject
as follows:
THE difference of opinion lies between
the petitioners and this office in the inter-
probation of the act of February q, 1901.
The act of June 2. 1900, under which the
claim is made. Is merely amendatory of the
act of July S, 1898, and treats principally
the payments of such assessments.
THE act of 1901 entirely changes the form
of payment, prescribing that payment Is to
be made In three instead of four INSTALL
ments, making the whole amount due a
year earlier, and reduces the amount of in
terest on deferred payments. The part of
the act of 1900 allowing abatement for
payment within thirty days was a specific
proviso to that act. qualifying it's stiDula-
tions, and is left out of the latter act of
1901. / am of the opinion that the act of
1901 stands the one that regulates the
payment of all water main assessments
making full provision for a different form
and in so doing wipes out the proviSo in the
act of 1900, as 1t does all other acts or parts
of acts inconsistent with It."