The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-06

xorlEs with which 1t increases It's rev 6nue. would that be lessening the abil lty to pay?
 you asked 1t.
 lIr. Pillans--I beg pardon. Or if tn cost or 8 great part of 1t, Of pave ments Is paid by the abutting propert! owner. is that a permanent charg lgainst the city?
 Nr. Browne--I thank the gentleman Yor the suggestion. for one care not what Montgomery has, if you want tc ponfiscate the property of your citi- {. sens as it is charged upon the nool pf this Houses you are engaged in do- Ing now to some extent; you may SC m and do it, but we do not want that nv to be enforced all over the State pf Alabama. drew up sn amendment to this section, but 1t was not accept able, providing that there should not s be assessed against abutting properties tor street, sidewalk and sewerage inn movements a greater amount than 1C per cent. of the property .and they said that was not enough.
 Mir. Pillans--May I ask a question?
 Mir. Browne-Yes.
 MT. Pillans-Do you not recognize that nonresident owners of vacant lots ought to pay, not according to per centage of the value of the property but according to the front foot. when the people on each side by heavy ex- penditures in building have increased the value and usefulness of such va cant lot7
 Adr. Browne-I do not know how that fs. I know in some towns they ~sA. tI~ lar xynr and Tn less than two years will tear 1t up -and buiid another. It always did seem to me there was a iob in it. but I have known 1t to be done
 Now, no doubt upon one proposition. under the recent decisions of the Su- preme Court of the United States 1t has become the law of the land. not If the State of Alabama. but 1t prob- Ably would be in case they sued in the Federal Court, that you can absolutely eonfiscate property for street improve ment.
 Mr. Macdonald-You mean only in eases where the, Legislature permits Iuch thing to be done. not that 1t iS he law7
 MT. Browne-Yes. Under the deci- yion of the Supreme Court. the Legis- lature of Alabama can pass a law that Will allow a city to confscate the property, and there is nothing in our Constitution to justify the court in holding it unconstitutional. and cer- tainly the Supreme Court of the United States. under their last two utterances on this subject. would hold that 1t is perfectly right and proper. They un- dertook in everything the Norwood case. to say they. did not overrule it. h.xf fx, aNFa 70 those cases is where they assessed su- burban property going out to a park. for street Improvement, for the bene- f1t of all citizens and visitors, and after the assessment was made they had to sell the property, and the proceeds of the sale did not pay the assessment, but the Supreme Court said 1t was not . confiscation of that property. They had to explain that they did not over rule the Norwood case. In effect they did. but they said they did net. So, when the courts have come to that pass, where they uphold the absolute confiscation of property, I do not want the town that I represent. or the town that l live in. to have the right to 20 in debt to an unlimited amount and confiscate the property of It's citizens.
 am not opposed to improvements. It has been said by the gentleman from Mobile that he wants them to as- sess his property. i'll state, Mir. President. that on the street where live in Talladega, the owners for. two blocks there have offered to pave the street entirely free of any cost to the city, if the city would make the own CTS from there to town pave theirs, by charging them one-half the cost and m aoxrfrl AhA AAk Aal in favor of this kind of improvement, but I am not in favor of allowing it to be done under the guise of law.
 Mir. Pillans-Did the other people agree to do that? Those outside of the two blocks named?
 MT. Browne-The city has not yet done 1t. but we think they will.
 MT. Pillans-But if the others do not agree. and 1t is not made compulsory on them, and you pave your two blocks you can never make the others pave.
 Mr. Browne-There are some poor people living between ourselves. and town. One case of two orphan girls, and another case of widow, and we do not want to confiscate their prop- erty.
 And another thing, the town of Tal- ladega can get along with per cent, and 3 per cent. for it's water works, and then pay one-half for street im- provements. but we do not propose to pave ouf streets in an expensive man ner. The town of Talladega has no right to pave as the streets are paved here in Montgomery. A brick sidewalk is all that they ask for.
 Now in conclusion we ought not to spend so much time looking at this question from two different stand points. admit Montgomery and Birmingham should have relief, but submit they ought not to say we will take it, and take it in a way that will hurt the other cities and towns in Ala hama, or not take it at all.
 MT. Knox-I have supported the Committee on Taxation 1 believe in ev- cry proposition that they have sub- mitted to the Convention, and I have the greatest respect for the ability seems to me that in considering a matter having reference directly to the interest of the cities of the State. we ought to give weight to the committee which has had this matter specially in charge; we ought to consider carefully the recommendations of the Committee on Municipal Corporations. when we come to deal with the delicate Ques- tions of municipal taxation.
 Now, the argument Of the distin- guished gentleman, the Chairman, of the Committee on Taxation, suggesting that this whole matter will be re- lieved by exempting the cities of Mont gomerly, Mobile and Birmingham, from the operation of the law, assumes. MT. President, that we are not going to