failure  to  tender  fair  value,  we  fail  to  see  any  sensible
reason  for  such  provisions  in  a  charter.  But  the  people
who  pay  for  streets  made  the  charter,  and  while  they  granted
to  the  public  authorities  most  liberal  powers,  by  permitting
the  arbitrary  improvement  of  streets,  at  local  expense,  they
emphatically  reserved  to  themselves  the  right  to  have  three
things  distinctly  brought  to  their  knowledge,  viz.:  (1)
What  improvement  it  is  proposed  to  make.  (2)  What  the
cost  is  to  be.  (3)  What  property  is  to  be  charged  with
the  expense.  This  knowledge  they  declared  must  be  af-
forded in  a  certain  way,  and  after  that  they  reserved  the
right  to  remonstrate,  and  to  have  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the
council  to  overcome  their  objections.
It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  authorities  on  these  points.
The  A  B  C  of  the  laws  of  municipal  corporations,  that  the
power  to  levy  special  assessments  is  to  be  construed  strictly,
that  the  mode  prescribed  is  the  measure  of  power,  and  that
material  requirements  must  be  complied  with  before  there
is  any  liability,  is  all  that  need  be  quoted.  Spokane  Falls
V.  Brovnie^  3  Wash.  84  (27  Pac.  1077).  An  assessment
made  contrary  to  these  principles  is  void,  and  injunction
lies  to  restrain  its  collection.  Dill.,  Mun.  Corp.,  §§803-4;
High,  Injunctions,  §  539.
4.  It  only  i*emains  to  determine  whether  ordinance  No.
