The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-09-06
SPENCER IN A HOLE.
Case Whore His Personal and
Official Duties Conflict.

City Attorney Spencer is in peculiar
predicament. He is a resident OF the
much aggrieved Fourth ward benefit
district for opening Second and Third
streets. and naturally sympathizes witt.
the residents of that district in their
efforts to escape the $40 per lot tax
which has been assessed against them.
On the other hand, Mr.. Spencer is city
attorney, and in that capacity he must
defend the righteousness OF the city
position in the controversy
But Mr.. Spencer has made his cnolce.
He says: LAS between my personal de-
the slightest question as to precedence.
T certainly shall defend the position or
the city to the utmost of my powers.
1 believe that the city's position is
legally impregnable, and / feel that
whatever l may want as taxpayer OF
the district have the law on my side
as representative of the city,
When the council was fixing up the
boundaries of the rebellious benefit dis
trict, it was first arranged that they
should stop at the street in front of MI :
Spencer's house. Mr.. Spencer went to
the committee which had the matter In
charge and asked to have his property
included. IF you DON'T, he said to the
committee, people will say that used
my official position to escape being
taxed. So it was arranged to include
NIL OpCIlCCI SiuS Ol Tie StISct- anu a.
a consequence it might be truthfully
said that the city attorney got himself
into his present dilemma.
Mr.. Spencer thinks that the city has
made mistake. and he would like tc
have the work all undone. and fresh
start made. But he insists that it can't
be undone, and that the courts can not
| compel the city to start over again.
1.-THE people in the district who are
| putting up money to hire an attorney
are wasting their time and cash." says
Mr.. Spencer. THE suit which they pro-
pose to start will accomplish nothing.
The court can not order the whole pro-
ceedings annulled, because the proceed
ings have gone so far that those parties
in the district whose land has been con-
| demned have legal contract which the
| city must carry out. The city must buy
1 that land. The parties who have sold
| to the city refuse to voluntarily re-
| linquish their opportunity to sell, and
| there is no way of forcing them to re-
| linquish it.
"Then the only question is, will the
court step in and say to the council
You have not made this benefit district
large enough to pay for the improve
! ments contemplated I do not believe
! that the court will do this, for it is 6
the council how large to make the bene.
| fit districts, and unless there is SONS
| manifest outrage, the courts will MOI
| interfere. I can not see that there i:
/ ally 81 OSS Oatld6C LII ILLS CdScs
There is only one thing which the
| court can do, and that is to order re-
appraisement of the property in thu
| same district, and assess larger pro
portion of the tax to those procertie:
| which derive more benefit from the pro
posed improvement. This will not AFFORD
any relief to the district as whole
and will make the burden exceedingly
/ heavy on those who live near to tn,
i streets to be opened.
Il believe that the council would b,
| only too glad to let go if it dared, anl
| take a fresh start next year, rectifyinf
the injustice which is being done. Blu
it is simply a case where it can't lie
go. The people who have sold theil
property under the condemnation ar,
holding US to our contract. 1t is al
| unfortunate condition or affairs, but i
can't be helped What the city council
should have done was to have mad,
the district much larger in the frs
place, and so reduce the amount of ta1
| to be imposed on each 1ot.'