The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1882-08-03

taxing power of the Legislative Assembly of
the Territory, but only provides limitation
upon that power.
But the charter Of q municipal corporation
is the source of its taxing power. The cor
poration has such powers Of taxation as the
charter plainly confers upon it, and no
other; and in exercising such powers the
corporation must follow strictly the mode
provided in the charter, and no other mode.
In short, municipal corporation cannot
levy tax or make an assessment OF any
kind for any purpose, unless authorized so
to do by statute.
But the power of taxation is inherent in
the Legislative Assembly, and is subject to
such limitations as the Organic Act provides
Section 1924 of the Organic Act contains
this limitation on the taxing power of the
Legislative Assembly:
"All taxes shall be equal and uniform,
and no distinctions shall be made between
different binds of property, but the assess.
ments shall be according to the value of the
property"
This limitation applies only to general
tares and assessments for general purposes of
revenue, and not to local assessments for
local improvements, such as grading and
improving streets in cities.
There is we'll settled distinction between
general tares for general purposes and local
assessments for local purposes. And the
power to levy general taxes and the power
to make Total assessments are separate and
distinct powers. The authorities upon this
latter point are numerous, and the distinc-
ton must be a correct one, otherwise the
costs of improving street must be assessed
upon the personal property along the line OF
the street. as well as upon the lots fronting
on it, according to the value thereof. As
sessng the cost of the improvement upon
the lots alone would be making distinction
between different kinds of property" and
consequently in conflict with the Organic
Act
In the case Of the city Of Seattle VS.. H.
L. Yestler, the important distinction be-
tween assessments for general taxes and To-
cal assessments for local improvements was
not sufficiently considered, if considered
at all.
The decision in that case, by accident or
otherwise, is undoubtedly correct in some
respects. But there is manifest inconsist-
ency and want of discrimination running
through the whole opinion.
Again, it is well settled that, in the alb
sence of plain constitutional limitation on
the power of local taxation, the legislature
has a very large discretion in prescribing the
mode of making local assessments, aud that
when the legislature has exercised its dis
erection and prescribed mode, the courts
riii not interfere.
Various modes Of apportioning the ex-
pense of local improvements have been
adopted by the State legislatures, and all of
these different modes have been held valid.
In some States the assessment for improving
ing streets is according to the value OF lots;
in others, according to the front foot; in
others, according to benefits conferred, and
in others, the cost of work in front Of each
lot is a charge upon such lot. Of course,
absolute equality and exact justice is not
possible unaer either of these modes, and
one mode may be preferable to another.
But that is a matter Tor the judgment and
discretion Of the legislature, aud which ever
mode is adopted By the legislature will be
valid, unless some plain constitutional pro-
vision is violated. Indeed, it is distinctly
said in many adjudged cases, "That when
''the legislature, in its discretion, has Sc
elected one of these modes, the courts can
''not say that another mode would be more
equitable in the distribution Of the
| burden"
The Seattle case does not decide that a
statute passed by the Legislative Assembly
prescribing that the costs Of grading IN front
Of tots'shaH be assessed on said lots, would be
inconsistent with the Organic Act and void.
1t decides that city ordinance prescribing
such mode of assessment was void. By
the city ordinance ''the estimated cost of
grading in front OF the lots was assessed on.
and against said lots. :"
Now, this mode of assessment was not
prescribed by the Legislative Assembly of
the Territory. So far as Seattle is con.
cerned such mode of assessment never had
the sanction OF approval Of the Legislative
Assembly. Its discretion" and Judgment
had never been exercised, or indicated.
And l am clearly of the opinion that when
the Legislative Assembly prescribes the
mode Of making local assessments for i'm
proving streets in city. the courts will not
interfere on the ground that such mode is
| not ''equal and uniform" At any rate,
should the courts do 80, they would be met
with large number Of authorities against
| them.
The charter Of the city Of Vancouver (sec-
tons "a and S5) prescribes the mode Of
making assessments for the improvement Of
| streets, sidewalks, &C. The mode thus