Evening star., 1903-07-21
WATER MAIN TAXES
JOSEPH r. FREEMAN'S APPEAL
FROM ADvERsE ACTION.
Contradictory Statements Made Re
garding Service of the Notice
of Assessment.

Joseph r. Freeman of 612 18th street
northwest. recently wrote to the Commits
sfoners appealing from adverse action on
his request for remission of penalties and
interest on an assessment for water main
taxes levied against two parcels of land
owned by Mr.. Freeman Brightwood
avenue. The two parcels each have been
taxed on a 1O0-foot frontage, at $1.25
front foot. Twenty dollars for advertising
and a penalty of ten per cent. amounting
to $3.50 have been added, bringing the total
of the bill up to s1S7.3O. Mr.. Freeman
claims he never notified of the as
sessment or he would have paid it at once
on the parcel where the water has been
introduced. The tax on the second parcel
will not be due until connection is made
with the main
The statement" saws Mr. Freeman,
that any person ever handed to me
notice of assessment in the case referred to
is absolutely and particularly incorrect, no
matter whether made under oath or other
wise. If, therefore, you insist on making
collection Oh the strength of such report
your reason falls. Notwithstanding state
ment to the contrary. have never received
any notification either directly or indi-
rectly relative to the case, excepting pas
ter on my tax bill in June of the present
year"
Mr. Freeman says he called at the Dis
trict offices and stated that he had no
knowledge of the assessment having been
made and did not suppose he was in
arrears.
Regarding the Advertisement.
Il was then informed" he continues,
that it was no part OF the duty of the
officer of the District to notify any one ex-
Cept through the papers. If this is true and
the fact was advertised, l presume l have
not much of case, but the attaching of
paster in June 1903, implies duty or de-
sire of the authorities to notify people who
are in arrears before selling the property
involved. Such being the case it does not
seem unreasonable to expect prompt no
titication of assessment and II such
notice had been given at any time during
the regular collection of taxes from the
ate of assessment to date, the bill would
have been paid, preferably.
Now, gentlemen, l maintain that the
method pursued in this and similar cases
savorS of sharp practice, thing l am sure
you are not anxious to foster, and as
matter of fair dealing and common sense
l again ask that some measure of relief be
afforded me. it is assuredly through no
fault of mine that the bill was not paid long
ago. as to one parcel where the water is in
troduced.
Furthermore. I was informed in the spe-
cial department of your office where de-
lnquent taxes are looked after, that both
parcels of ground were in the same predica-
ment. and comes the assessor ana
acknowledges that one plot is not yet as
SesSdble for the water main tax, yet 5oth
were listed down there and each for %l4.'.
This shows that even the assessors ofhce
is not nfallible. If you desire | shall glad
ly forward sworn statement before notary
that no notification in any way prior to
June 1903, was ever brought to my atten-
ton
Assessors Response.
Commissioner West who has charge Of
all tax matters referred the papers in the
cases again to Mr.. II. Fl. Darneille, the as
SCISSOR, who, after calling attention to
previous report made by his office, says:
"Mr. Freeman now asserts positively that
he did not receive notices of the levying of
the assessment in question. In refutaton
of his assertion 1 incloSe herewith the re-
turns of service, in which it VIII be OBJ
served that Inspector FitZhugh swears that
he placed the notices in question in MT
Freeman'S hands.
'"rhe assessments were levied at the rate
of SID per front foot and were based, each,
upon frontage of 100 feet; the net amount
of ach assessment was consequently $l23
The law in force at that time required the
Commissioners to give notices of the levying
of water main taxes by advertisements in
the newspapers This was done in the case
in point, and the costs of advertising IN
each case were S20.42, which was added to
the amount of the assessment.
"AlthOugh it was not required by law at
that time. it was the custom of the office in
addition to the newspaper advertisement. to
serve notices upon property owners. This
was done n this case, and these are the
notices Mr.. Freeman claims he did not re-
ceive. Even if he did not receive them, the
provisions of the law at that time in force
were carried out by the insertion of the ad-
Vertisement in the newspaper.
'.As stated in my former report water ha
not been introduced in the 5.S6-a acre piece
and the assessment against that parcel OF
land will not be due and payable until the
Introduction of water"
In view of the statement that the service
of personal notice was not necessary and
that the law was complied with by adyer-
tiSing in the papers, the Commissioners will
probably not remit the penalties and inter-
est.