The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-05-11
SUPREME COURT DECIDES
 WITHCITY IN PAVING CASE

years, the property holder paying each year one-twentleth the amount assessed against him for the street improvement Gist of the Decision
 In the Moore case the validity of the act was attacked at two points. It was dii not cover all the material that was in the act. It was argued that there being matter in the bill which was not germane to it's title. the act was uncon- sututional. This contention was not sus- tained by the court and the decision quickly disposed of it.
 The other and more important question involved was whether abutting property might be assessed for street improvement according to its front footsge. It was alleged in the suit that under the Baby Bond Act this would be made to deprive citizens of their property without due process of law.
 Tho opinion draws attention to the fact that this question raised, whether prop orty was to be assessed according to it's frontage or according to its benefits de- rived from the Improvements. had been tEreshed over and over again.
 In passing upon this point the opinion says: "The better view and that sup ported by the greater weight of authority Is that 1t is a matter of legislative ex- rediency whether abutting urban prop crty will be benefited to the extent of the cost of the given improvement of street or sidewalk along its front and therefore entering within legislative competency to impose such tax upon the property abut- ting the improved street. apporticning the charge thereto according to the dis tance several parcels front upon the street. rsx.st.,,. ,S A.u<ko-S<4~~ -4tss
 The opinion gives great and impress sive citation of authorities. Three type written pages of the opinion are filled with authorities sustaining the opinion of tho court. l4
 Following this citation of authoraty the opinion says:
 This court puts itself in harmony with the doctrine of the foregoing texts and the decision of the court in the case of the City Council of Birmingham vs. Klein. decided in 1889 and has so remained tf we except some wabbling in dicta. snperinduced by what we supposed. what was generally supposed and what three judges of the Supreme Court of the United States yet believe. was the effect of that courts decision in the case of Norwood vs. Baker,"
 The news that the Supreme Court had given the city its first and most import ant bond case was quickly told around the city building and the municipal ofll- ciais were unreserved in the expression of their satisfaction at the decision. Mayor Carr was especially gratihed.
 Mayor is Delighted.
 sT am delighted; said the mayor. ~It means Q great deal for the city of Mont gomery, more perhaps than I could say at this time am hardly prepared to tell its full effect upon the question of our municipal policy. Heretofore when tho city made Improvements In the paving of streets it did not know whether or not 1t would get the money back. It re- moves the uncertainty by which we were surrounded. We can now so ahead and make Improvements. The city. am told, has nearly s5O.000 tied up in these bond eases which will now be repaid to it. It is good news to the city that we are going to get this money back, faced as We are with an annual deficit of S11, ,0O0 ' When seen yesterday afternoon City Att torney Ray Rushton said:
 '.The decision means to laynan that the people will have to pay for their paw ing. In its decision the Supreme Court has reversed it's previous ruling. having decided to quit webbing and get in Dne with every other court, State and Fed eral in reference to these bond acts I believe the decision will be of immense value to Montgomery. But in simple truth there never was a statute in State or Federal law authorizing any other de- cision."