Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-07-12
Mr.. SULLIVAN'S REJOINDER
CRITICISES COMMISSIONERS AND
CORPORATION COUNSEL.
Alleges Attempt to Prevent Citizens
From Obtaining Relief From ell
legal and Confscatory Taxes"

George f. Sullivan, an attorney. who
charges the corporation counsel with en-
de"voring to prevent citizens of the Dis
t. t from getting relief from Illegal and
confiscatory taxes "even after the ilegality
+ been determined in the courts by test
&C. is not satisfied with the nswer made
by the corporation counsel to the Comnls-
sio rs upon the charges he made last
week.
In second letter to the Commissioners,
which was received by them yesterday, DIR.
Sullivan said
1T has been we'll known that your board
has refused to recognize any duty on it's
part toward private cit liens in the district
to protect them from illegal and confisca-
tory taxation, and has instructed the cor
poration counsel, so the corporation coun-
sells office has stated on various occasions,
to take every possible step, technical or
otherwise, to prevent private citizens from
getting relief from Illegal and contiscatory
taxes, even after such illegality has been
finally determined in the courts by test
case Such being the case it was a gen
uine surprise to me when your board came
out in the newspapers several weeks age
as desiring to secure for the citizens of the
District relief from illegal and harsh taxa
ton, and when the president of your board
stated in his speech at the jamestown OK
position, June IL, that your board repre-
Sc the people of the District in truly
democratic sense, is always the alert to
that justice is done to every one, and
always welcomes expressions on the part
of individual citizens regarding all matters,
and your action in all matters, in order that
the right thing may be done, l did not
teStations to bes taken seriously, or
whether they were intended a matter
of pleasantly simply to which no one was
expected to pay any attention, and cOnse-
mn mi f., inr yk-rt
Citation of a Case.
Mr.. Heitmuller also wrote you a COM
munca ton under date of June II in the
ane connection, and made particular ref
erence, as illustrating the administration of
the corporation counsel's office, to the case
of Cleland VS.. District of Columbia, decided
by Justice Barnard April ., 1907, which was
ault to recover back from the District al
Illegal license tax, which had been exacted
under threat of arrest and paid under pro
test. The Court of Appeals. in a test case
held that such license taxes had been
eXacted without warrant of law, but the
1 strict, nevertheless refused to refund the
tax, and, when suit was finally brought tC
recover it, frustrated the granting of re-
lief to the party by entering a plea of the
statute of limitations-a plea which no hon.
est person or corporation ever files against
just and mertoTious cause of action. as
this concededly was. Justice Barnard stated
Notwithstanding the apparent harsh
ness of the rule that would allow the mu-
nicipal government to demand and receive
an illegal tax, and then retain it ~ plea
OF the statute of limitations, l can no
legal ground for refusing it's az licatlon in
the present case"
Merely Illustrative.
According to Mr.. Sullivan his first COM
munication to the Commissioners, which
,intc 1aI IN, |ha
ago, was devoted chiefly to illustrations of
the general method in which the corpora
ton counsel's office is conducted. and he
made reference among other things to the
Handley case against the District, in which
the corpo"ation counsel is alleged TO have
acted exceptionally unfair. In his last COM
muncauon Nh. Sullivan says regarding this
case:
Il did not propose. and do not propose, to
try out the Handcy case before your
board. either upon the record before the
court in that case, UPON my own statement
of the case, or upon the Measurements and
misleading Impressions attempted to be
conveyed by the corporation counsel con-
corning the case, and particularly concern
ing additional grounds for the cancelIa ton
of the assessment therein involved indie
pendent of. and having no relation to, tn.
present inquiry. 1t is entirely immaterial
to this inquiry whether the assessment is;
also Illegal upon other grounds than that
it was imposed under the Illegal admins
tration of the law condemned by the Bran
denburg decision
Alleged Theory.
MY communication set up simply that
after your board and your corporation
counsel had administered the Minor street
law in all cases prior to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Brandenburg case.
on the theory that the whole cost of the
street including marshars and jurors fees,
had to be assessed as benefits whether
the property assessed was benefited to that
extent or not, and after the Supreme Court
in the lrandenburg case declared such
method of procedure to be an Illegal admin
istration o. the law your corporation coun-
sells office fought vigorously before JUS
tee Barnard to prevent his setting aside
some special assessments which had been
returned by the jury in his court prior to
the Brandnnburg decision. After setting up
that Justice Barnard Cancelled those as
sessments, notwithstand. the opposition
of the corporation coUnsels Office, l further
referred to the fact that the corpora ton
counsels office thereupon turned around
ana filed answer in the Hand!cy case
which is still pending, and which arose I'M
der the same Illegal administration of the
law, denying that the law was admins
tered on the theory condemned by the
Brandenburg decision.
Il further set forth that the only excuse
the corporation counselS office pretended
to give for filing an answer SO utterly at
variance with what every one knew to be
the fact that it was important to make
"a test case of the Handey case-that ii
was important to the District to prevent
Mrs. Handley from getting relief for the
reason that. if the assessment against her
property should be Cancelled, other persons
similarly situated would also seek relief