The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-08

CTS should he constructed in any city. town or village in Alabama. 1 appre- | bend that large number of gentlemen | of this Convention are familiar with the principle as announced in many or ! the decisions of. the Supreme Court or | the United States and of our own Su- preme Court, that the benefits which have accrued to the property by the | improvement must be taken into con- sideration. Now challenge the gentle
 man to show to me single law. either in the Constitution or i1 the statutes of any State, that puts the burden of proof of showing tha increase of value to the property upon the cities. Let us look for a moment at how you go to meet this burden of proof. Pave | ments have been laid down in Mont gomery. and we Alabamians hold with | pride that it is one of the best cities | in point of public improvement in the
 whole State. and yet how could the city
 meet the burden of proof that a certain | building on Dexter Avenue was bene- | fited in dollars and cents up to a cer- l tain amount? It is one of the most
 difficult things in the world to do. It is
 one of the most difficult things to say
 just how much in actual value that
 property has been benefited by the
 laying of the pavement.
 | Mr. Sanford (Montgomery)-Ffow would you assess it, then. except by
 the benefit received?
 Mir. Boone-I would assess 1t accord | ing to the Barrett law in Indiana. | which has stood the test of the Su-
 preme Court of the United States, and which is the only way it can De done. That provides that before an improve ment shall be made there shall be a hearing given to the abutting property | owner and that he shall have the right
 10 be heard on the question of benefits by the City Council; that whenever the | improvements were made, after hear ing all the evidence on the subject. a | ruling or decision as to what the ben
 efits were that had thereby accrued should be made, and that the property owner should be guaranteed the right to appeal and take that question be-
 fore jury as to whether 1t was ben efted in the amount assessed CT not, and that is the only way, in my judg | ment. in which 1t can be done consti- tutionally, so as to give to the abut- | ting proprietor his day in court, and
 I would be opposed to giving 1t in any other way.
 MT. Sanford (Montgomery)-I will ask you if that has not been done in | many of the towns in Alabama which | have assessed large sums against their | property in some instances amounting
 to confsCStion?
 MT. Boone-If that is so, 1 would not
 be in favor of doing anything that would prohibit any man from having his day in, court on any question, but am opposed to this amendment put ting the burden of proof of such in creased value upon the city or town. ask any gentleman in this Convention how you would go to prove the actual increased value that had accrued to that place? At most it is speculative At most 1t is probematical. Isn't it rather as the Supreme Court of the United States said in the case of Nor wood against Baker, head note one, The principle underlying special as- sessments upon private property to meet the cost of public improvements Is that the property upon which they are imposed is peculiarly benefited, and that, therefore. the owners do not, in fact. pay anything dn excess of what they receive by reason of such im- pavement" If you look at that case and look further at the case of Will hams against the District of Colum-
 bia, you will find that that matter has
 been pressed upon the courts of this country, and there is not text writer anu ioI- d uecISlon 10 De 1OunQ, (anQ challenge any gentleman to show tt) Tn America which lays down any rule
 by which we can measure accurately in dollars and cents the benefits derived
 by the owner of abutting property on account or the putting down of side walks or streets or paVements. This | Is matter, it seems to me, of great | importance.
 It further limits the cost to per
 cent It may be that a man owns A vacant lot. In my city there are un-
 fortunately many such lots on the prin-
 clpal streets. where the owners keen
 them year after year and won't build
 on them and won't sell them. They
 stop progress. and a man has simply
 vacant lot there. He keeps 1t there.
 and you cannot make the cost on that vacant lot more than per cent. un- uer this amendment, consequently there would be break in your pave
 iheht, and a man next door that pays on the same space, the same front
 tootage on the avenue, pays his per
 cent. on say $l0,000, while the man who
 owns the vacant lot adjoining. pavs E per cent. on the value of the vacant | lot.
 Mr, Sanford (Montgomery)-It is the olHerence In the value of rhe nron. | erty. | MT. Boone-But ne arbitrarily stands
 in the way of the Jugernaut the pen1 l tleman referred to. You have got to
 keep up with the procession
 if you come into citjes aDd
 towns. and We ought to have
 progress. We have not, and saw ,t | with regret, a first-class city, such as
 ls known m general parlance in this
 country. within the State of Alahama | we nope to have them in years to come. but I say that, if this amend.
 ment is adopted, as I say in the open
 ing. you had better name it an amend
 ment to prevent the development of
 cities and towns in this State.
 MT. Coleman (Greene)-I offer an
 amendment
 The amendment was read as follows. Amend the amendment by strikino
 out so much of the amendment as
 places the burden of proof upon the
 municipality and so much of it as
 limits the assessment to five Der cent ' | The President-The question will be
 upon the amendment to the amend
 ment by the gentleman from Greene. MT. Maclonald-I ask unanimous con
 sent to accept the amendment. The consent was given.
 | MT. Coleman-Please read if .S
 amended
 The amendment as amended was read
 as follows:
 No city. town or other municipalitv
 shall make any assessment for the cost
 of sidewalk or street paving or for the
 cost of the construction of any sewers,
 against property abutting on such l street or sidewalks so naVed ar drai,,