The Cairo bulletin., 1904-11-04
MUST ABANDON
! IMPROVEMENTS
-------~
Supreme Courts Decision Re.
ceiyed by Cit,'s Attorneys
ORDINANCES ADOP TED
BY CITY COUNCIL WOULD NOT
HOLD IN LAW---MUST HAVE
PETITION or PROPERTY
OWNERS.

The opinion CT the supreme court of
Illinois In the special tax case, decid'
ed on the cath of October, has been
received here by the attorneys for the
city. The case was that of L'Hote
and Endsley VS.. Village OF Milford and
was an appeal from the county court
of Iroquois county.
The act concerning local improve
ments was amended by one act adopt
ed May II. 1903. and by another adopt
ed May Is, 1908. The first or said
amendatory acts provided that no ordi-
nance for making local Improvement
by special assessment or by special
taxation of contiguous property should
be adopted in cities. towns and vii
lagos having population OF less than
$4,000 and more than 10000, unless
the owners of one-half the property
abutting on the line of the proposed
Improvement should petition for the
same The second amendatory act
provided that in places having pop
ulatioa ef less than $4,000 and more
than 10000 a similar petition OF prop
erty owners was necessary. Under
the latter ac: no petitions would be
required in cities OF the size of Cairo.
In the case just decided. the opin-
ion being written by Mr.. Justice Boggs
the court held that both of these acts
of 1903 were invalid because they con
trayened the prohibition of the con
stitution of the state against the en-
actment OF local or special legislation,
Section % of article Of the constitu-
ton declares the general assembly
shall not pass local or special laws in
any OF the following enumerated
cases. that is TO say 80 Incorporat'
ing cities. towns or villages. or chang.
ing or amending the charter OF any
town city or village; granting
to any corporation, association or indi-
yidual any special or exclusive priyi-
lege, immunity or franchise.
The court said: Each Of these
amendatory acts of 1908 changes or
amends the charters of certain, only,
of the cities, towns and villages OF the
state, and also grants to owners OF
property in certain only, of the cities,
towns and villages OF the state the
privilege of inducing and empowering
the municipality, by petition. TO con-
struct local improvement or of re-
fusing to invest the city with power to
make local Improvement by special
or special taxation, by de-
clining no ioin;fn petition therefor
privileges anI imnItinitissI which are
denied TO or not given or granted to
the owners of property in other cities,
towing or villages Of the state.
The court then says that law Is
not to be denominated local or special
simply because II may operate only in
certain municipalities of the state, II
bv its terms, it includes and operates
uniformly throughout the state under
like circumstances and situation and
that cities and villages of the state
may be classified for purposes OF leg
islation on the basis of population, II
such basis has some reasonable rela.
ton TO the purposes and objects 10 be
attained by the legislation and in
some rational degree accounts for the
variant provisions of the enactment.
But the court holds:
The conclusion Is irresistible that
In each of these enactments the classi'
fieation of the municipalities by popu-
lation does not bear any true relation
TO the purposes and objects of the Leg
islation. II is clear that the classified
ton adopted in each Of the acts Is not
based upon any distinction having n
rational or reasonable relation to the
special legislation affecting the class
es. The classification is wholly arbi-
trary, and does not justify the legisla-
ton which would clothe some OF the
of the state with cha'-
tered powers not possessed by others,
and which would also confer special
privileges and immunities on property
owners and electors in some OF such
which are denied to the
owners OF property and TO electors In
other OF the cities and villages Of the
state. Both of the amendatory acts of
1903 contrayene the organic law and
are imperative and void. The amend
atory act of 1899 remains in force.
and under IL the board Of village trus-
tees af the appellee village were lack
Ing in power to adopt the ordinance in
the absence of petition by the own.
ers Of the property to be taxed to pay
Tor the proposed improvement"
Under this decision OF the supreme
court the local improvements recently
planned in Cairo viii have to be aban-
aoned for the present. All of sheee i'm
we're to be made under or.
dinances adopted by the city council
without any petition from the property
owners. this being done under the pro
visions OF the act Of May Is. 1903,
which the supreme court has. as above
stated. now held invalid.