The Saint Paul globe., 1901-06-19
MVERSES ITS DECISION
STATE SUPREME COURT AGREES
WITH FEDERAL ON WATER
FRONTAGE TAX CASE
CITY MAY LOSE $4,000 A YEAR
Justices Say Their Minds Are Not
Changed as to the Law, but
Reversal Makes Appeal
Possible.

L OlIOWluS Tie llluSIr1OuS eXdnpio Ol IIIS
| supreme court of the United States, the
supreme court of this state has reversed
itself in the so-called water-frontage tax
case thereby affirming the judgment Of
the Ramsey county district court, and
ruling that the tax is valid. In taking
this course the justices VINO subscribed
to the opinion filed in the case state that
they have not changed their views as to
the merits of the issue, but have been
largely influenced by the fact that the
property owner may now appeal to the
supreme court of the United States from
this decision, whereas, were they to ad-
here to their former ruling such privilege
would be denied the city.
The title of the case is County of Ram
Sey, respondent, vs. Robert p. Lewis,
appellant, and on the original hearing
in the state supreme court the judgment
Of the trial court was reversed and the
tax was held to be invalid.
The opinion in reargument, which was
filed yesterday, was written by Justice
Lewis and concurred in by Chief Justice
Start In the opinion Justice Lewis says:
The only question before the court in
this case was the bearing of the federal
constitution upon sections 26 and q, chap
ter 10, Special Laws of 1885.
1.-THE decision formerly reached by this
court was based wholly upon what was
believed to be the principles announced
in the case of Village of Norwood VS..
Baker, liz U. Z0J. lnOS6 DTlnClp1SS
are: That the exaction from private
property of the cost Of public improve
ments in substantial excess of the special
benefits accruing is to the extent of such
excess, a taking of property under the
guise of taxation, without compensation;
and further that when the principle Of
assessment adopted by the legislature, is
without reference to the benefits, and
Just and equal distribution of the burden,
no provision having been made for
hearing or review by the property own
ers, the act is void. Or, as expressed d., in
judgment Of the circuit court enjoining
the assessment is affirmed upon the
ground that the assessment was under
rule which excluded any inquiry as to
the special benefits and the necessary
operation of which was, to the extent of
the cost of opening the street in ques-
ton. after special benefits accruing to the
abutting property therefrom, to take the
private property for the public use with
out compensation.
"Tested by these principles, we hold
that the water frontage tax could not be
sustained, and now, after careful re-
consideration and review Of the cases,
were the question one of final jurisdiction
in this court, we feel that we should ad-
here to the views expressed in the former
''But in the recent case of French VS..
Barber Asphalt Co., vol 2, Supreme
eone1rre9fy o1"i P Psgo Pegorted 3 % the federa
preme court has attempted to qualify and
limit those principles as applied in the
Norwood-Baker case. While it does not
appear that the court has directly denied
the soundneSS of the rule announced, yet
the purpose seems to be, in its latter ex-
pressons to hold that the principle will
not apply when in conflict with the Sys-
tenn of taxation adopted by a state, un-
less in some special case peculiar and
extraordinary hardship is the result In
other words: 1t is not the principle or
rule Of assessment which is the text Of
the validity Of the state act but rather
the effect of the application of the rule
in particular cases. 1t may be sound
rule in one case and not in another"
''It would be useless at this time to
further attempt to define the position
of the federal court as expressed In us
later decisions. 1t is sufficient to say
that we are in doubt as to it's holdings.
Our state constitution authorizes the spe-
cial assessments provided by the stat
utes, and such statute has been held
valid under the constitution IN State vs..
Lewis, u Mimi. 81 1t is possible that
this fact may cause the federal court
to sustain the statute upon the theory
that it is a system adopted by the state
and that the result of such an assessment
cannot be extraordinary or of such un-
usual hardship as to come within the
limitation applied in Norwood vs. Baker.
The views of this court, however, have
not been expressed with sufficient clear
ness to warrant us in assuming that our
understanding of it's decision in the Ncr-
wood-Baker case and our former appli-
cation of it to the state act would now
be sustained by that court.
I'VE have, therefore. decided to re-
verse our former decision, and we are
influenced in this conclusion somewhat
by the fact that the property owner may
cause our conclusion to be reviewed by
the proper final tribunal whereas such
privilege would be denied the city, were
the former ruling adhered to.
'"The decision heretofore filed is re
versed and the order of the trial court
affirmed"
The tax upon which the contention is
based Is 10 cents a front foot levied
against property fronting on the water
mains. The effect of the decision, if 1t is
permitted TO stand without appeal to the
United States supreme court or is upheld
by that tribunal, will be a loss to the
water board of one Of tine sources from.
which it derived more than $4,000 year
revenue. The collections in 1899 amount
ed to $7S,261. The law has been in effect
since 1885.
D. w. Doty, attorney for the property
owners, stated yesterday that he was
unable to say at that time whether the
case would be carried to the federal su-
preme court