Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1906-12-10
EAST END may
FIGHT The TAX
Property Owners Object to
Assessment for Down
Town District

Al meeting of the Gateway club
saturday evening, at the East End
mission. the question of sewer as
.essnent was thoroughly discussed.
Three hours were consumed in the
details of the proceedings Of the
council and the rights of those parties
who are taxed and will not get
sewer.
The first proposition rnat came up
was the fact that the notice that the
council has just sent out states that
the assessment just called for is for
the down town sewer district No. l.
II was understood that the new sewer
district had been divided into four
districts, Nos. /. 2, 8 and 4.
1t seemed to be the opinion Of those
present that If the present assessment
would only provide for the construc-
tion of the sewer in the district ex-
tending from Snake river up to the
court house 1t was about time for the
people east Of that point to get busy.
Councilman Morey was present and
explained that this assessment notice
was intended to read so that 1t would
cover the whole system up to Twenty
first street.
Time to Make Objection.
Attorney g. Orr McMinimy called
attention that the charter Of Lewiston
provided that mo suit to set aside
the special assessment or to enjoin
the making OF the same shall be
brought. nor any defense to the valid
ity thereof, be allowed after the ex-
poration OF 80 days from the time the
amount due on each lot or parcel Of
land. liable for such assessment is as
certained ana confirmed by the. city
council" 80
The notice given states that the
amounts were determined and fxed
on the 2sth of November and the 80
days will be up, before the time for
objections on January !. This will
necessitate action by any citizen OBJ
jecting before that time.
The members then discussed the
proposition as to whether or not the
city should assess, legally, the prop
erty east of Twentyfirst street and
south of Seventh avenue for the
building of a sewer on the fiat, tht
benefit other than right to connec
up some time in the future II they de-
sired.
Legality Of Tax Is Questioned.
John H, Long Of the supreme cour
library had briefed this proposition
and presented number of decision
from able courts denying the LEGALITY
Of such tax and laying down the fol
lowing principles:
First-A special assessment can no
be levied upon private property 10
the purpose Of constructing mai
sewer, unless such assessment
based upon the idea Of an equivalen
in benefits received by the propert
for the assessment paid. The benent
must be direct and certain, not re
mote and contingent on the VIII
the council: not merely intended q
speculative.
Second-Special assessments can
not be levied on nonabutting owne'
for the cost Of constructing = maj
sewer. although the property natura
ly drains into the sewer ana may
some future time connect therewfth.
Third-Conceding that 1t was risl
to levy a special assessment on fuful
BENEFITS. this special asFessment
question is unjustiy .apportioned al
is an extortion and confiscation
private property
inequalities Are Charged.
The fact that the assessment +
sewer purposes against the proper
Of Mrs. Schofeld was equal to
y-eater than that against the Bea
property on West Main street "
brought out in the discussion to sh'
the alleged injustice in the wh'
matter, this having been taken in co
nection with the fact that the Bea
property is more valuable than
schofield property and the form
win be provided with sewer and
latter will not.
1t seemed to be the consenses
opinion Of those present that II
property owners were willing to I,
the matter up that the question sho
se decided BY the supreme court
c'unciiuan xqrey q behalf Of
=