Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-04-10
DOUBT SURROUNDS
SANITARY CHARGE
Action of Maryland LegiSIa-
ture Amending Commission
Powers in Question.
By WILLIAM J. WHEATLEY.

By WILLIAM j. WHEATLEA.
Legality of the increased front-fooi
benefit charges by the Washington
suburban Sanitary Commission againsi
property owners in the sanitary dis
trict in Montgomery and Prince
Georges Counties was as uncertain
last night as it was before the Mary
land Legislature last week passed tne
amended sanitary commission organic
act and the Maryland Court OF Ap
peals at Annapolis on Friday named
down an opinion sustaining the IN
junction issued by the Circuit Court
at Rockville, Md, prohibiting the com
mission from collecting the increased
charges laid by its order OF June 10
1925.
on the one hand are the representa-
fives of the property owners protest
ing the increased charges, and who
claim that the Maryland Court OF APP
meals decision nullifies the act of the
legislature. while on the other are
the representatives of the Washing
ton Suburban Sanitary Commission
who claim that the legislative act
makes the courts decision Of no effect
More Litigation Expected.
There is. one thing that is quite
clear in the situation as it stood last
night, and that is that the whole ques-
ton will be the subject OF further
litigation before the courts, for any
move on the part of the Commission TO
collect the fees under this order will
be met with opposition from the pro
testing property owners. The legisia,
tive act has not yet been signed by
Coy. Albert G. Richie of Maryland.
The issue may come on. contempt
proceedings. +. Regis Noel of this
CITY. attorney for the protestants OF
the increased assessment said that
if the commission should attempt TO
collect the charges that the matter
will be reported to the Court OF APP
peals with a view to having members
of the commission cited before the
court for contempt in violating the
Injunction. Then the commission
would claim justification by the act
OF the Legislature of April 4. which
would have the effect of opening the
whole case for another review as TO
whether the legislative act nullified
the courts order.
Cites New York Case.
r. Howard Duckett, chairman of
the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission, said that the commission
would proceed to collect the taxes or
assessments from those who have
not paid, as soon as the measure be-
comes a law He said that 1t is clearly
within the legislative power to pass an
act validating the order OF June 10,
1925. and that such legislative acts
have been upheld by the Supreme
Court of the United States. Mr.. Duck
Sit said that a similar situation to
that in the sanitary district came up
III New York. in the case of Spencer
versus Merchant, which finally went
TO the Supreme Court of the United
States.
There the New York Legislature
validated certain assessments for the
construction of boulevard in Brook
Iy1l. putting varying assessments
against property owners along the
tiloroughfare.
Act Was Upheld.
ii was attacked, and the court UP.
held the legislative enactment, and
the decision quotes a ruling of the
late Chief Justice Marshall. in which
.aThe judicial department. cannot
prescribe to the legislative depart
ment limitations upon the exercise Of
its acknowledged powers. The power
to tax may be exercised oppressively
upon persons; but the responsibility
OF the Legislature is not to the courts,
but to the people by whom its men,
bers are elected"
The court in this case, however.
did prescribe that there must be no.
tiee 10 the property holders and A
chance TO be heard, not on the ques-
ton of the tax as a whole. but as to
it's apportionment among the various
property holders. The Sanitary Com.
missions order of June 10, which in
creased certain assessments previous
~ laid down, it was said, was issued
without notice and chance to be heard
was not gwen, under the require.
menfs OF the fourteenth amendment
OF the Constitution of the United
States, which deals with the taking Of
property without due process of law.
Holds Bonds Unaffected.
1t was made clear by Mr.. Duckett
that the decision viii not affect the
outstanding bonds of approximately
81, 900 900, issued by the commission,
and to pay the sinking fund and in.
terest on which the increased charges
were laid down by the June 10 order.
Mr.. Noel quoted from the constitu.
ton of the State of Maryland, which
required the three departments of
government, legislative. executive and
judicial, to be separated and not in.
terfere with one another, and two
cases by the Maryland Court of APP
pearls 10 bear out his contention.
These were the mayor of Baltimore
VS.. Horn and Porter VS.. mayor of
Baltimore. In the latter case the Leg
islature, acted, to approve assess.
ments which were attacked, after the
courts ruling, but in the sanitary
commission case the Legislature had
acted before the courts decision, but
Mr.. Noel contends that this makes
no difference in the result.
When the bin amending the or
gantc act Of the Suburban Sanitary
Commission was before the Legisla-
ture, Senator Iansdale G.. Sasscer of
Upper Marlboro, Prince Georges Coun-
ty, held a long hearing for the OPP
ponents to the measure, who particu-
1arly attacked the provision which is
intended to validate the June 10 order
However, at that time, Senator Sass
Ger and Senator Eugene Jones Of
Kensington, representing Montgomery
County I'm the Upper House Of the
Legislature, said that they were in