The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-05-11
Removes Doubt of Future
 Improvements.
Montgomery May Assess Property holders Per Front Feot for Work Done-city offlciai. Pleased
 with Deessioa.

By decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama yesterday the paving of side walks and streets in Montgomery under the Baby Bond Act will be resumed and the city will secure over ssoooo. which has been tied up in Mitigation over the famous bond act. N For the court decided yesterday Shat abutting property for street innprove- ments could be assessed per front foot age. In two previous decisions of the court property had to be assessed ac. cording to the benefits derived from the street improvements. a method, which although 1t might have been prescribed by law was impossible in reality In the opinion which was rendered by Chief Justice Mcclellan 1t was pointed out that the previous decisions of the court in the Birdsong and Foster cages were not reversed but there was "a change in the dfcta" The court, in Jus- tice McClellan's opinion. affirmed the de- c1sion made by the Supreme Court in 1sss in the case of the City Council of Birmingham vs. Klein
 The vital point of the decision is that property may be assessed for street pav- ing according to the number of feet of Its frontage to the street being paved. City Officials Pleased.
 The opinion created a sensation. a most pleasant sensation fin city govern reentaI circles. By adverse decisions Of the Supreme Court street paving ir, Montgomery has been practically blocked in Montgomery for over four years. With the ''Baby Bond Act" ineffective the cost or paving had to be borne by the city which had already more financial bur dens than 1t could bear. The decision. fr. n<%f H.xA... A.. improvement in Montgomery.
 The opinion of the city's municipal au- thorities was voiced yesterday by Mayor Carr in saying: VI am delighted but I can hardly tell at this time of what im- portance and just what the decision means to the city of Montgomery"
 The money which the city will receive as direct result of the decision is that which 1t has paid out for street paving under the Baby Bond Act'' where the property holders have refused to pay the assessment against their property for the Improvement. The decision makes their property liable for the cost of the im- nrovement as originally contemplated in the Baby Bond Act"
 History of the Case.
 !. Justice McClellan's opinion was render ed in the case of the City Council of Montgomery vs Ella Moore. carried up from the City Court of Montgomery. It was a reversal of the decision of the lower court.
 The case was the third in number test ing the legality of the Act approved Feb- ruary IS, 1895, known as the Baby Bond Act" It is the only important paving case which has been won by the city of Montgomery.
 Two previous cases similar fin theinr nature to, the Moore case and known as the Birdsong and Foster cases were de- clded against the city. The effect of those decisions were that abutting property
 might be assessed for street improvement according to benefits derived from the improvement Both decisions were body blows, to the "Baby Bond Act"
 The bonds issued for street paving un- der the "Baby Bond Act" ran for twenty