Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/262/710
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:59:55+00:00

Document:
MILHEIM et al. v. MOFFAT TUNNEL IMPROVEMENT DIST. et al.
The Commission is authorized to levy special assessments upon all real estate within the Districtexcept governmental property which is exemptedfor the purpose provided in the Act, such special assessments to be made in proportion to the benefits to each piece of real estate accruing by reason of the improvements and in accordance with the rules of apportionment adopted by the Commission. It may at any time appraise the benefits which will result to such several parcels of real estate from the organization of the District and the construction of the tunnel, and, after such appraisal of benefits, levy special assessments, to the extent of such benefits upon all such real estate; and may for such purposes adopt rules providing, inter alia, for notice and hearing to all owners affected thereby. And if the revenues from the tunnel are not sufficient to pay interest due on the bonds in any year, provide for their retirement, pay expenses and maintain the tunnel, in order to prevent the occurrence of a deficit, the Commission is required to levy special assessments sufficient in amount, annually if necessary, upon all such real estate, in the manner provided.
The Commission, having been duly organized under the Act, fixed the definite location of the tunnel, adopted preliminary plans for its construction in such manner as to provide for the various specified uses, estimated its cost, and resolved to issue District bonds in the authorized amount to pay for its construction. Aft r making an investigation and examination of the real estate in the District, and taking the testimony of a great many witnesses from all parts of the District, engaged in various kinds of business, it determined the aggregate value of the real estate within the District subject to assessment to be $298,544,966mainly in accordance with the assessed valuations for taxesand further determined, subject to correction and confirmation after hearing the property owners affected, that the value of each parcel of such real estate would by reason of the organization of the District and the construction of the tunnel be increased at least to the extent of fifteen per cent. And it thereupon appraised the benefits to the several parcels of such real estate at such percentage of their value, as the basis of special assessments to be thereafter made under the provisions of the Act. It also fixed a time and place at which it would hear objections filed by any property owner to the appraisal of benefits thus made, upon evidence and argument, before confirmation thereof, and gave public notice of such hearing by publication in the manner specified in the Act. This notice recited the proceedings which the Commission had taken, including the appraisal of benefits which it had made as the basis for special assessments, and stated that any appraisal of benefits found upon such hearing to be incorrect or inequitable, would be modified or amended, and that, after making all proper corrections, the appraisals would be confirmed.
The motion to affirm the judgment should, however, be granted if the questions on which the decision depends are found to be so wanting in substance as not to need further argument. Rule 6, § 5 (32 Sup. Ct. vi) Hodges v. Snyder (April 9, 1923) 261 U. S. 600, 43 Sup. Ct. 435, 67 L. Ed. , and cases therein cited.
1. Public Purpose. The nature of a use, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question. However, the determination of this question is influenced by local conditions; and this court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions and regard with great respect the judgments of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses in any state. Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U. S. 700, 43 Sup. Ct. 689, 67 L. Ed. , decided to-day, and cases therein cited. And like respect should be accorded to the declarations of the legislative body of the State. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 160, 17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369. Here the legislature, familiar with the local conditions, has declared that the construction of the tunnel will benefit the people of the State; and both the local court of the State and its Supreme Court have held its construction to be for a public purpose.
They, however, contend that the tunnel must be deemed for a private, rather than a public purpose, because it is located so as to be practically a part of the line of the Moffat Road, and is intended for its use, the real object of the Act being, as expressed by the Governor, to save this railroad to the people of the State. 1 There is virtually no denial of this; and evidently this was the motive which led to the passage of the Act and is the primary purpose for which the tunnel is to be constructed. This, however, is not a private purpose. The use of the tunnel by the Moffat Road will be for a beneficial public purpose. This railroad runs from Denver, on the east of the Continental Divide, to Routt County in the northwestern corner of the State, a distance of 255 miles. It crosses the Divide by a circuitous route above this tunnel, with steep grades and heavy curves. In the winter seasons this portion of its line is almost impassable. Its operations result in heavy losses, and it is now in an embarrassed financial condition and unable to build the tunnel. Without the use of the tunnel, the railroad must, it seems, be abandoned; and this avenue of communication between different portions of the State will be lost. The use of the tunnel will reduce the elevation, grades and curvature of the railroad, shorten its line about 23 miles, and save it large amou ts annually. Evidently the preservation of this railroad, a common carrier of persons and property, as a means of communication between the eastern and northwestern portions of the State, is a matter of great public importance; and a tunnel enabling it to provide quicker and cheaper transportation during all seasons of the year will greatly promote the public welfare.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. R. CO. v. RISTY et al.
PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO v. RUSSELL & CO., S. EN. C.
McGREGOR v. HOGAN, Sheriff, et al.
GORHAM MFG. CO. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF NEW TORK et al.

References: v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.