Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1911-05-12
THE SEWER CASE.

TT the Observer correctly undef-
stands the decision of the oregon
Supreme Court in the case OF u. Y.
kirkpatrick VS.. City of Dallas, 1t IS
held that the city has power to en-
force the collection of sewer ASSESS
ment against all property directly or
Indirectly benefited by such improve
ment: in other words, that the councli
is not necessarily limited to assess
ment of the property Immediately ad-
facent to or abutting upon those
streets in which the sewers are lald.
But we also take it from the courts
opinion that the exercise OF such
power is optional with the city, and
that il the council desires to include
property not abutting, but benefited
by the Improvement, 1t must SO
clearly specify its intention in the
ordinance providing for the improve
ment.
The Supreme Court holds that In
the Dallas case the improvement Or
dinance did not clearly indicate such
intention on the part of the council.
Justice Mcbride says: "The language
used. the cost of such sewer shall be
assessed to the property abuttlng up
on the streets where the same are
laid or benefited thereby II given IT'S
usual or ordinary meaning, indicates
an intention that only abutting prop
erty shall be assessed, and that only
when it is benefited by the improve
ment." In this instance the plaintin
is the owner of property plated as
two separate and distinct lotsa one
abutting upon Main street and the
other abutting upon Robb street. An
attempt by the city to assess both
lots to pay for a sewer on Robp
street only resulted in the owner
paying the assessment on the Robp
street lot and refusing to pay on the
other.
The decision in this suit recalls to
mind an interesting incident connect
ed with the recent city campaign,
when Mr.. Kirkpatrick was candi-
date for the office of Mayor. During
the contest, some person signing hlm-
self "Citizen," wrote a letter to
local newspaper in which the impress
sion was given out that Mr.. Kirk
patrick was seeking to avoid the pay
ment of just assessment against his
property, and that he had even gone
to the length of carrying his suit TO
the Supreme Court thereby putting
the city to great and needless ex-
pense. This incorrect statement oil
the situation had its effect among the
voters, many of whom never stopped
to think that Mr.. Kirkpatrick had
won his suit in the Circuit Court, and
would therefore have no object In
appealing a case in which he had
been victorious. The impression was
created that Mr.. Kirkpatrick was ap-
pealing the case and putting the
taxpayers to a heavy expense, when,
in fact, It was the city council that
was keeping up the fight.
1t is right for the council to pro-
tect the peoples interest at all times
and under all circumstances, even II
IL should take every dollar in the city
treasury to do it, but 1t is the part
of wisdom to avoid litigation as far
as possible.
No property owner can be right
fully blamed for protecting his prop
erty from what he has cause to be-
lieve to be an unwarranted or unrea'
sonable act on the part of the.city. He
has a right to demand that when the
city takes of his means for public
purposes, nothing that is unreason'
able or unjust shall be required oi
him. II is a noteworthy fact in thii
connection that the courts are al
ways watchful for the protection o
the taxpayer to the extent Of insistlni
that no lien or assessment shall be
enforced unless the rights OF suci
taxpayer shall have been closel!
observed and guarded at every step
When there has been a close question
of the legality OF taxation proceed
lngs. the courts have almost invaria
bly, given the taxpayer the benefit o
the doubt