Evening star., 1901-05-01

water main shall be laid.
"On October 5-S1S95~Homer B. Parsons
filed in the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia petition against the District
of Columbia and the Commissioners there
of complaining as Illegal of certain
charge or special assessment against land
of the petitioner, as a water main tax or
assessment for laying a water main in
the street on which said land abuts After
a hearing upon the petition and return the
petition was dismissed An appeal was
| taken to the Court of Appeals of the Dis
trict of Columbia, where the Judgment of
the Supreme Court of the District was af-
this court and BY it the Judgment of the
Court of Appeals was confirmed The
principal grounds OF complaint were that
the lot owner was given no opportunity
to be heard upon the question of cost or
utility or benefit of the work or of the
apportionment Of the tax; that the assess
ment was made without any estimate of
| the cost of the work to be done and with
out regard to the cost of the work or
value of the Improvement, and not upon
the basis or benefits to the property as
sessed.
United States Has Complete Jurislic-
+ tiOn.
'This court held that the legislation in
| question was that of the United States and
must be considered in the light of the con-
clusions often announced that the United
States possesses complete jurisdiction both
of political and municipal nature, over
the District of Columbia That when by
| the act of August Ii, 1894, Congress en-
acted that thereafter assessments levied
| for laying water mains in the District of
Columbia should be at the rate of 81 q per
linear front foot against all lots or land
abutting upon the street, road or alley in
which water main should be laid such act
must be deemed conclusive alike of the
| question of the necessity of the work and of
the benefits as against abutting property;
| that to open such questions for review by
| hn hnr
property-holder would create endless con-
| fusion; that where the legislature has sub
mitted these questions for inquiry to q
| commission or official persons to be ap-
| pointed under municipal ordinances or reg
ulations the inquiry becomes in it's nature
! Judicial in such sense that the property
| owner is entitled to hearing, or to notice
or opportunity to be heard: that the
| function of the Commissioners. under the
| act, was not to make assessments upon
abuttfng properties nor to give notice to
the property owners of such assessments
| but to determine the question Of the pro-
| priety and necessity of laying water mains
and pipes and of erecting fire plugs and hy-
drants and that their bona fide exercise
of such power cannot be reviewed by
| the courts.
Law in Present Case Plain
eff. then the reasoning and conclusions
| Of these cases are to be respected as estab-
fishing the law of the present case, it is
gress, by the act Of March 3, 1899, to
order the opening and extensions of the
| streets in question, and to direct the Com
| mlSSonerS of the District to institute and
conduct proceedings in the Supreme Court
| of the District to condemn the necessary
| land; and it was also competent for Con-
| gress in said act to provide that of the
| amount found due and awarded as dam
| ages for and in respect of the land con-
! demned for the opening of said streets, not
| chn ha
| sessed by the jury in said proceedings
| against the pieces and parcels of ground
| situate and lying on each side of the eX-
| tension of said streets. and also on all or
| any adjacent pieces or parcels of land
| which will be benefited by the opening Of
said streets as provided for in the said
act. and that the sums to be assessed
| against each lot or piece or parcel of
ground should be determined and desig-
mated by the jury; and that in determining
what amount should be assessed against
any particular piece or parcel of ground
| the jury should take into consideration the
situation of said lots and the benefits that
they might severaHy receive from the
opening of said streets.
1T is also established by those authori-
ties that in proceedings of this nature no
tice by publication is sufficient: and it ac-
cordingly follows that the order of publ
| cation in the newspapers named by the
Supreme Court of the District gave due
notice of the filing of9the petition, and an
opportunity to all persons interested to
show cause, if any they had, why the
prayer of the petition should not be
granted Such notice must also be held to
have operated as notice to all concerned
of the pending appointment of jury, and
that proceedings under the act of Congress
would subsequently be had. This gave an
opportunity for interested parties to attend
the meetings of the jury, to adduce evil
dence and be heard by counsel. The re-
turn of the marshal shows that some, at
least. of the property owners appeared be-
fore the jury, produced witnesses and were
| heard by counsel. If the appellees did not
avail themselves of these opportunities the
court and jury, proceeding according to
| law, were not to blame.
The record shows that on September 10,
| 1899, the court passed an order nisi con-
| firming the verdict, award and assessment
| of benefits, unless cause to the contrary
| should be shown or before the 4th day
of the following month, and directing Ser
| vice of a copy of the order niSi on the
| owners of the land condemned and on the
| owners of the land assessed in said verdict.
| 1t also appears that the appelees were
| served with this copy, and that they ac-
| cordingly filed exceptions to the finding of
! the jury and to the confirmation of the
| award on October 4, 1899
| "On the 18th day of November, 1899, after
| hearing, the Supreme Court Of the District
! passed a decree overruling the exceptions
| and confirming the verdict of award and
| assessments made by the jury.
Act of Congress Valid.
Upon the authorities heretofore cited it
| would therefore appear that the act OF
| Congress of March 3, 1899, was a valid
| enactment, and that the proceedings there
under were regular and constituted due
| process of law, unless reasons for differ
| cnt conclusion can be found in the opinion
| of the Court of Appeals, which reversed
| the decree of the Supreme Court of the
| District, and ordered the dismissal of the
petition.
What, then, was the reasoning upon
| which the Court of Appeals proceeded? 1t
was thus stated in the opinion:
- The principal questions raised by the
| assignments of error are two: First, that
| of the constitutionalty Of the act of Con-
| gress under which the proceedings have
| been had; and, second, that of the suffi-
| cheney of the notice given to the appel
| lants in respect of the assessments upon
| their property.
81. With respect to the first of these
| questions, we think that it has been con-
| clusively determined for us by the decision
OF the Supreme Court of the United States
| in the case of Norwood agt. Baker Q72 L.
| S., 26O.
LAS understand that decision, which
undoubtedly has the effect of greatly ouali-