The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-06
BABY BOND ACT DECLARED
 TO BE NULL AND VOID

1 This decree substantiated the claims of l the attorneys as to the unconstitutional | ity of the act. They fought it's constitu- | tionality on the grounds that the title and the subject matter of the act did not conform. It was entitled. An act to au- | thorize the city of Montgomery to issue | bonds for the purpose of paving the streets of the city" The claim was made | that the act. although it bore that title, authorized the city to make the property owners pay all the costs of paving with out regard to the benefits conferred. The baby bonds ran for twenty years. one tw entieth of the total being paid each year. The owner of tho abutting proper | ty was expected to pay each of the twen- | ty payments and failing to do this the city was authorized to collect the assess ment by law.
 In the process of collecting the assess
 ment as provided in the act, the two final attacks was made on the law. It was al- legged that the city was author ized to take private property without due process of law and to take private property without just compensa- ton.
 The fight will, however, be continued by
 the city of Montgomery in the Supreme Court of Alabama, on the grounds that the Supreme Court of the United States
  tional in several different suits. It Is al- legged that the baby bond act for the city of Montgomery was drawn as from a model of a special law passed by the Legislature of several States for different citiee It is said by city officials that the Montgomery law was exactly similar to
 these special acts which had been passed
 upon by the United States Supreme Court and upheld in each case.
 ra m a in n where the
 decision leaves those property owners who
 have already paid the assessments under the baby bond act, It is thought that
 those who voluntarily paid the assess ments will have no way in which to re- cover from the city ft is said. however, that those who paid under protest will have good grounds for action against the
 city for the recovery of money paid in the Iscity treasury. This matter will rest in abeyance until the Supreme Court of the
 State has finally passed upon the consti- tutionality of the special act
 The Moore suit was test case, upon which thirty other similar suits depend. It Is thought that a special agreement
 will be made between the attorneys for
 the defendants and the City Attorney by
 which these cases will be placed on the
 Equity docket to await the action of the
 higher court on the Moore case.
 The fight on the baby bond act is not
 to he confused with the successful con-
 test waged against the sidewalk paving
 tax which was attempted to be collected by the City Council by an ordinance passed under the charter of the city.
 Tn the case of the city versus T. Gard
 ner Foster. the contention of MT. Foster ! that the ordinance passed under the pow | CT given by the charter was unconsd-
 .tutiunal was upheld by the Supreme l Court of the State. The baby bond act
 has not been under fire until the Moore case was tried.
 In the meanwhile all paving in Mont
 gomery' has stopped and it will not be re-
 sumed until the Supreme Court hands down an opinion on the Moore case.