The Washington times., 1901-10-03
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT.
The Question of Abatement In
Water Main Assessments.
An Apparent Conflict Between the
Laws of 1900 and I0O1-Estimates
of Revenue for the Fiscal Year of
1oO3-Request TO Remove n Tree.

Laws of 1900 and I3OI-Estimate'
of Revenue for the Fiscal Year ot
1oO3-Request TO Remove Tree
The Commissioners are in receipt of a
communication from Charles c. Cole and
r. ID. Donaldson, attorneys sfor Joseph
Speidel, in which they state that they
have rendered to the COLLECTOR bf Taxes
the sum of $l,073n in paymentpf the as
| sessments for water main taxes! ON GER
tain lots in Metropolis View. and The cen
| tire of lexington The say that&the sum
mentioned is per cent less ritsnsth total
| amount of the assessment on said lots, as
provided for in fhc act of june 2, 1900,
where payment is made within thirty days
after the receipt of notice etc.
The attorneys state further that the
owner of the property is Fe;Hdent of
| Wheeling, w. Va, and that be E1pceived
| the notices of the assessments August %,
1901. They say, further, that the collector
refused TO accept the tender, saving that
he had been Mortified by the Water De
partment that the act of 1904 allowing
the abatement for payment IN advance,
has been repealed by the act Of Feb
ruary 2l, 1901.
The attorneys submit. however. that the
part of the act of 1900 providing for the
! abatement has not been repealed by the
act of 1901 The latter act, they say, re-
peals only so much of the act of 1900 as
| is inconsistent with 1t, and they maintain
that there is nothing In the act OF 1901
| inconsistent with the right to the abate-
ment under the act of 1900
1t is pointed out that there were three
changes made by the law of 1901, in that
of 1900 in relation to the assessment, col
lection and payment of water main taxes.
The first char ges somewhat the method
of giving notice they say; and the second
provides for the payment in three equal
instal.ments instead of four: and the third
reduces the interest 10 be charged on the
deferred installments from 10 per cent to
G per cent.
1t is maintained that there Is not word
in the act of 1901 upon the subject OF the
right to pay in ADVANCE aand have the
benefit of the abatement, and. therefore,
nothing inconsistent with such right.
This law, the attorneys say, has been in
force in the District for more than twen-
ty-five years, and is beneficial alike 10
the District and the citizen. They are of
the opinion that Congress did not intend
to change it, unless the language clearly
manifesting such change mad been used,
and they think that in the absence of such
language the provision of the act of 1900
should be held as still in force.
L. q. Davis, the Collector of Taxes, ad-
mits the tender of the money, and eX-
plains that the difference in opinion lies
between the petitioners and his office as
to the Interpretation of the law. The
collector after citing several sections of
both laws, concludes that, in his opinion,
the act of 1901 stands as the regulation of
his office in the collection of water main
assessments.
Capt L. H Beach. the Engineer Com
missioner, forwards the case to his asso-
ciates with the recomme ndation that the
matter be referred to the Attorney for the
District for his opinion. He states, also,
that he, personally, remembers that 1t
was the intention of tie Board, as wei as
of the committees of Congress, to allow
the rebate to remain in force in the new
law in the manner exactly similar to that
embodied in the old law.
II. II. Darneille, the District Assessor,
yesterday submitted to the Commissioners
his estimate of the receipts from taxes
and other sources of revenue for the fiscal
year ending June 30 1893, exclusive of the
Water Department. The estimate shows
prospective receipts from real estate in
the city on the basis of the s1.50 assess
ment of s. 65S. 6.32 and of agricultural
land on the basis of 81 OF $5s,57i.s7. making
total on real estate of s., 2,IG9, ,59s -.
Under miscellaneous sources of revenue
the estimate shows the following: Wash
ington City at S1.50. Sl5, 903 Ia; 81 5S. III
at 30 per cent. S2l04, 692Q Washington
County at $l50, 81. .965. .30Ii S14. 81 at %
per cent S2S3. .G31 IS. Washington County
at 81. $. .657, ,1S7; $751; 81 at 80 per cent.
s51,914 6S. Tax on personal property testi-
mated. $201.250 at 60 per cent. Sl20l59;
tax ON gross receipts Of street railways
$I0i, ,5l2.20; arrears of real estate taxes.
si25. 600; arrears Of personal taxes. $lO1J0i
penalties and interest on taxes, 5000;
advertising property for arrears of taxes,
5000: licenses, $500 600: market rents,
81 600; fines from Police Court, $4,000:
building permit fees. $4,000; rent of
wharves and District property, $500; sale
of taxes, $3.50; surveyor fees, $3.50;
fees of Sealer of Weights and Measures,
5000; water permits, tl.50; dog tags,
SIG 600; pound fees, 81 SEQ; hay scales. 81, 500;
assessments for permit work, 1850; mis-
cellaneous, including fees Of inspector OF
gas meters, sewer permits. etc. Slo,VU.
Total estimated receipts, 81, ,634. .s0O.51.
The Assessor states that the estimated
receipts for 1893 are based upon the assess
ment for 1902 and the collections Of the
various items Of revenue from all other
sources during the year 1901.
The attorney for the District yesterday
submitted to the Commissioners an opin-
ion upon the communication of Joseph
r. Fague, attorney for Thomas L. Smith
son. protesting against the water main
assessment upon lot l6 and part of lot
H. Slhtif ANlo-
1T appears" says the attorney, chat
this property fronts on School Street and
Thirteenth Street. on February 49, 1909
the property was assessed for water
main, laid on Thirteenth Street, which
was paid. Thereafter water main was
laid on School Street, and the abutting
lots 10 and II We're assessed for this main,
May 10. 1901. The claim is that these lots
are unimproved; that they are original
lots and are not subject under the act
of Congress approved June %. 1873, to the
assessment on School Street until they
are subdvided.
'"The act of Congress approved August
II, 1894. to regulate water main assess
ments in the District of Columbia, pro-
vides. That hereafter assessments levied
fer laying water mains in the District Of
Columbia shall be at the rate of SIS
per linear foot against all lots or land
abutting upon a street, road or alley in
which a water main shall be laid.
These lots abut on School Street. in
which water main has been laid, and
there is no provision of law generating
them from asse essment therefor because a
water main has been previously laid along
another street upon which the lots abut
The assessments complained Of are doubt
less Onerous, but the act of Congress ap-
proved August II, 1891 in its administra-
tion, under the advice of the Attorney for |
the District has been uniformly treated |
as repeating the provision of the act of
the Legislative Assembly of June .. 1873,