Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1882-08-19

sTREET AssEssNgyTA
The Organic Act is not the source of
the taxing power of the legislative
Of the Territory, bat only
provides limitation upon that power.
But the charter of a municipal corpo-
ration il the source of it's taxing power.
Ths corporation has such powers OF
taxation rs the charter plainly confers
upon il, and no other; and in exercising
such powers the corporation must fol-
low strictly the mode provided Ia the
charter, and no other mode.
In short, municipal corporation can
not levy tax or make an assessment OF
any kind for any purpose, unless autnor
lied 10 to do by statute.
But the power OF taxation Is inherent
in the Legislative Assembly, and = sub
jet 70 such limitations as the OrRan1o
Act provides. Section 1874 OF tho Of-
ganic Acs contains this limitation on
the taxing power Of the LsRis'as''e
Assembly: :.
IAN taxes shall be equal and uniform
and no destinations shall be msde DO
tween different kinds of property. but
the assessments shall be according to
the value Of tie property"
This Limitation applies only to general
taxes and assessments for general pnr-
poses Of revenue, and not u local as
seesments for local improvements, such
AZ grading and improving streets In
cities.
There il a we'll settled distinction be-
tween general taxes for general purpo-
SIS and local assessments Tor local
purposes. And the power to levy gen
cral taxes and the power 10 make local
assessments are separate and distinct
powers. The authorities upon this
point are numerous, and the distinction
must 10 q correct one, otherwise the
cost of improving a street must be A.
sessed UPON the personal property along
the line of the street a. we'll as tho
lots fronting on it, according to the
value thereof. Assessing the cost Of
the improvement upon the lots alone
would be making distinction between
different kids Of property" and cOnse-
auently in conflict with the Organic
Act.
In the case Of the City Of Seattle vs..
II. l.. YesleY, tbs important distinction
between assessments for general taxes
and local assessments for local improve
nents. vas not sufficiently considered,
II considered ut all.
The decision in that case, by accident
or otherwise, il undoubtedly correct 10
some respects. But there is manifest
inconsistency and want Of discrimina-
ton running through tbs whole Opin-
ion.
Again, il il well settled that, in The
absence Ut plain constitutional limlta'
ton on the power Of local taxation,
the Legislature has very large discre-
ton in prescribing tho mode Of making
local assessments. and that when the
Legislature has exercised its discretion
and prescribed I mode, the courts will
no. Interfere.
Vsrions modes Of nppOrtioning the
expense Of local improvements have
been adopted by the State Legislatures,
and all Of theso different modes have
been held valid. In some States the
assessment for improving streets IS ac-
cOrding to the value of lots; in others,
according to the front foot; in others.
according to benefits conferred, and III
others, the cost Of work in front of each
lot is q charge upon such lot. Of course,
equality and exact justice IL not
possible under either of these modes,
and one mode may be preferable to an
other. But that ia matter for the
Judgment and discretion OF the Logis-
laturs. and whichever mode il adopted
by the Legislature will be valid, unless
some plain constitutional provision is
violated. Indeed, it il distinctly said III
many adjudged cases: THAT when the
Legislature, in it, discretion. has re-
''lected one OF these modes, the courts
"can not say that another mode would
''be more equitable in tho distribution
''of tho burden"
The Seattle case does not decide that
a statute passed by tho Legislative As
semt ~ prescribing that the costs Of
grading in front Of lots shall he assessed
on said lots, would be inconsistent with
the Organic Act and void. 1t decides
that q city ordinance prescribing such n
mode Of assessment was void. BY the
CITY ordinance "the estimated cost OF
grading in front of tho lots was as
sessed on, and against said iots.,'
Now, this mode of assessment was
not prescribed by the Legislative As
ssmbly. Its discretion and Judgment
had never been exercised, or indicated.
And am clearly OF tho opinion that
when tho Legislative Assembly pre-
acribes the mode Of making local as
sessments for improving streets in q
city. the courts will not interfere on the
ground that such mode is not "squal
and uniform" At any rate. should the
courts do 80. they would be met with a
large number Of authorities against
them.
Tho charter Of the City Of vancou-
yer (sccti0ns a and S5) prescriboa the
mode Of making assessments for the
of streets, sidewalks, etc.
The mode thus prescribed must be fol
lowed, and no other. In Vancouver,
where she streets are naturally Of an
even grade, perhaps no system Of an
assessment and apportioument ever de-
viscd would approximate nearer to
and justice than the one pro-
scribed by the city charter. All systems
produce some inequality.
The foregoing views are sustained by
a great number Of adjudRed cases, hold
ing:
LIST. That constitutional limitations
similar to that contained in our Organic
Act refer to general taxes to defray
ordinary expenses. and not to special
taxes or assessments for local improve
ments.
End. That, in the absence OF con-
limitation ON the power of
local taxation. the Legislature has large
powers, which, whom ex-
orcised by prescribing mode Of local
taxation. win not be interfered with BY
the courts, unless there is some fragrant
abuse Of such discretion.
have not been able to find that the
Legislature of any State or Territory
has ever adopted the rule declared to be
the correct one, for making local as
in the case of the City Of
Seattle VI. Yealer. Tbs rule declared in
that case combines two separate and
distinct principlcs-the one, according
to value; the other according 20 bene-
fits. These two principles arc incon-
sistent With each other, and IL ono is
adopted the other must be abandoned.
They cannot logically subsist together.
Speaking OF local taxation. Judge
Cooley says:
Absolute equality and strict Justice
are unattainAble In tax proceedings.
The Legislature must b left to decide
for itsslf how nearly Il is possible 70
approximate such result; and il decis.
len a. 10 what II proper. Just and polite
sxnvSak ~ x3v.~l mi ~s>s~1.>~s.~~