DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 7 
quirement of a special benefit is the foundation of the theory of 
special assessments. Judge Cooley. in his work on Taxation. Chap- 
ter 20. third edition, says : 
Special assessments * * are made upon the assumption that a portion 
of the community is to be specially and peculiarly benefited, in the enhance- 
ment of the value of property peculiarly situated as regards a contemplated 
expenditure of public funds: and. in addition to the general levy, they demand 
special contributions, in consideration of the special benefit, shall be made 
by the persons receiving it. The justice of demanding the special contribution 
i^ supposed to be evident in the fact that the persons who are to make it. while 
they are made to bear the cost of a public work, are at the same time to suffer no 
pecuniary loss thereby ; their property being increased in value by the expendi- 
ture to an amount at least equal to the sum they are required to pay. 
While it is the duty of the legislature to determine that both public 
and private benefits will result frctm local improvement, it has the 
right to delegate this determination to such other authority as it sees 
fit. This is the usual practice, and, in general, assessment laws 
authorize a specially constituted board, a court, or city or county 
officials to decide this matter. Every special assessment proceeding 
should show somewhere in its record, either by legislative declara- 
tion or by the finding of some properly constituted authority, that 
both of these essential- are present. 
The legislature also has the power of fixing the limits of the 
assessment area, of constructing and paying for the improvement, of 
securing rights of way, etc., or it may delegate this authority to 
some other body, which is the usual procedure in any general im- 
provement law. 
The legislature must determine in what way local assessments 
shall be apportioned and it has considerable latitude in this matter. 
Laws have been enacted and upheld by the courts in which local 
assessments were based upon proportional benefits, on frontage, on 
valuation, and on area. The decisions of the United States Supreme 
Court seem to hold that the State legislatures have the right to ap- 
portion special assessments as they see fit. either by the front foot, 
area, valuation, proportional benefit, or any other criterion, pro- 
vided the method of apportionment is just. A method may be fair 
under some conditions and unfair under others. In Houck v. Little 
River Drainage District. 239 U. S. '254, the Supreme Court, speaking 
through Justice Hughes, says : 
In view of the nature of this enterprise it is obvious that, so far as the 
Federal Constitution is concerned, the State might have defrayed the entire 
expense out of State funds raised by general taxation or it could have appor- 
tioned the burden among the counties in which the lands were situated and the 
improvements were to be made * * * It was equally within the power of 
the State to create tax districts to meet the authorized outlays. The legisla- 
ture, unless restricted by the State constitution, ran create such districts di- 
rectly, or, as in this case, it may provide for their institution through a proceed- 
ing in the courts in which the parties interested are cited to appear and present 
their objections, if any. The propriety of a delegation of this sort was a ques- 
tion for the State alone. And with respect to the districts thus formed. 
whether by the legislature directly or in an appropriate proceeding under its 
authority, the legislature may itself fix the basis of taxation or assessment, 
that is. it may define the apportionment of the burden, and ir< action ran not 
be assailed under the fourteenth amendment unless it is palpably arbitrary 
and a plain abuse. * * * Unless the exaction is a flagrant abuse, and by 
reason of its arbitrary character is a mere confiscation of particular property. 
it can not he maintained "hat th/- State has exceeded its taxing power. 
