Opinion of the Court.

which resulted in the making of the improvements and in assessing complainant's lots for a portion of the costs thereof, there had been any disregard of the provisions of the statutes and ordinances, or that complainant's property had been charged differently from that of the other lot owners. Nor was it alleged that the portion or share of the cost of making the improvements assessed against complainant's property in point of fact exceeded the benefits accruing to each property by reason of such paving.

The only foundation of the bill was the allegation that “the said statutes and ordinances providing for the paving and grading of streets are in violation of the rights of the complainant under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that they do not provide for any hearing or review of assessments at which the property owner can show that his property was not benefited to the amount of such assessments, but that the same shall be made arbitrarily according to the foot front."

The case was thus disposed of by the learned judge in the Circuit Court:

"It is the claim of complainant that the charter, in the provisions mentioned, that the entire cost of the street improvements, except for street and alley crossings, etc., shall be assessed against the abutting property by the fronting measurement, without any regard to the special benefits received by the property or their relation to the cost of the improvement, is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and is null and void; that such legislation constitutes taking of property without just compensation, and is a denial of equal protection of the law. The case of the village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, is the foundation for this position, and seems fully to sanction it. . . . The Supreme Court of Michigan has declined to depart from its decisions sustaining the constitutionality of like statutes providing for assessments per foot front, on the ground that the ruling in Baker v. Norwood must be confined to the facts of that case and has no application to an assessment for paving. With all respect for that learned tribunal, I am constrained under the

JUSTICES HARLAN, WHITE and MCKENNA, dissenting.

cases cited, to a different opinion of the decision, and to follow the Supreme Court of the United States upon the construction of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution."

Accordingly a decree was entered in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and a perpetual injunction was issued. Parker v. City of Detroit, 103 Fed. Rep. 357.

This court has just decided, in the case of Cass Farm Company v. Detroit, affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, that "it was not the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment to subvert the systems of the States pertaining to general and special taxation; that that amendment legitimately operates to extend to the citizens and residents of the States the same protection against arbitrary state legislation affecting life, liberty and property, as is afforded by the Fifth Amendment against similar legislation by Congress, and that the Federal courts ought not to interfere when what is complained of is the enforcement of the settled laws of the State, applicable to all persons in like circumstances and conditions, but only when there is some abuse of law, amounting to confiscation of property or deprivation of personal rights, as was instanced in the case of Norwood v. Baker," ante, 396.

Like conclusions were reached, after a full consideration of the authorities, in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company and in Wight v. Davidson, ante, 324, 371.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, (with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA,) dissenting.

The controlling question in the above case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389, just decided. For reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.

VOL. CLXXXI-26

Counsel for Parties.

WORMLEY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

ALLEN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Nos. 101, 102. Submitted November 12, 1900.-Decided April 29, 1901.

Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45, and French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, followed.

Mr. D. W. Baker, Mr. John C. Gittings and Mr. Malcom Hufty for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Andrew B. Duvall and Mr. Clarence A. Brandenburg for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. And now, April 29, 1901, the judgments in the foregoing cases are affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45, and French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324.

SHUMATE v. HEMAN.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

No. 550. Argued February 27, 1901.-Decided April 29, 1901.

French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., again followed in holding that the contract in question in this case made for the construction of a sewer and the assessment against the property of the plaintiff in error for the cost of making it were not null and void.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. G. B. Webster for Shumate. Mr. Hiram J. Grover and Mr. Hamilton Grover were on his brief.

JUSTICES HARLAN, WHITE and MCKENNA, dissenting.

Mr. David Goldsmith for Heman. Mr. Robert E. Collins and Mr. H. P. Rodgers were on his brief.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit brought in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis by August Heman to enforce payment of a special tax bill issued in his favor by that city for the construction of a sewer in what is called Euclid avenue sewer district. The plaintiff recovered a judgment, and the defendants, who were owners of property assessed for the cost of making said sewer, appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, the case being reported as Heman v. Allen, 156 Mo. 534; and after such affirmance the defendant brought the case to this court by writ of error.

The only question which is open to our consideration upon this record is the contention of the plaintiff in error, that the provisions of the charter of the city of St. Louis, the ordinances of the municipal assembly, the contract with the defendant in error made thereunder, and the assessment against the property of the plaintiff in error for the cost of the construction of said sewer, were null, void and of no effect, for the reason that they were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as construed and applied in the case of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269.

This contention has been considered and determined, under a similar state of facts, by this court, in the recent case of French v. The Barber Asphalt Paving Company, ante, 324, in error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, and upon the authority of that case the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, (with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA) dissenting.

The controlling question in this case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389, just decided. For the reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.

JUSTICES HARLAN, WHITE and MCKENNA, dissenting.

FARRELL v. WEST CHICAGO PARK COMMISSIONERS.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

No. 201. Argued March 18, 19, 1901.-Decided April 29, 1901.

French v. Barber Asphalt Co. ante, 324, and Wight v. Davidson ante, 371, followed.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George W. Wilbur for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Robert A. Childs for defendants in error. Mr. Charles Hudson was on his brief.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

This case originated in proceedings to create and improve an avenue or thoroughfare known as Douglas boulevard, in the town of West Chicago.

The full history of those proceedings, contained in the statement of facts made by this court in the case of Lombard and others v. The West Chicago Park Commissioners, recently decided, renders it unnecessary to repeat them here. And the legal questions involved were so fully discussed in that case, and in French v. Barber Asphalt Co. and Wight v. Davidson, cognate cases decided at the present term of this court, that we are relieved from their further consideration.

is

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, (with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA) dissenting.

The controlling question in this case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389. For the reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.