Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1886-01-29
interest will meet tiis

whether he was Il consistent Demo-
crat or not. He was born, reared
aud has lived IN the Democratic
Party. He wanted to know whether
he hal progressed from the party
or the pAijy from him. He had
signed the report Of the committee,
which embodied his views fully, and
after mature reflection. He was not
elected 10 perform any such service
as was claimed and acknowledged by
the gentlemen who had preceded
him. He read the platform differ
emily. When the party declared the
|. nd grant should be forfeited for
non performance IF conditions, he
believed they meant it. How then
can we claim in equity any title
Have we not virtually closed our
mouths, if We would preserve the
,cmblance of consistency? Glass
NE as Democrat or not; these are
my vl-w,, and they are founded on
what | believe to be simple justice.
In a subsequent reply to one OF
the gentlemen MIR. McReavy said he
had never travelled mile by railroad
free in his life; had never received
any favors from them of any kind
the only pass he had ever received
was returned to the company, and
this session none had been rendered
him.
Judge Jacobs was sorry to see a
want of harmony among his Demo
cratic friends. Something was SAID
about forfeiture. 1t would be news
to the company, that the lands are
forfeited; it would be satisfactory to
him. In speaking on the bill, be
said:
1st-I am in favor of such repeal
because both political parties in their
platforms demand it. We were NOM
mated and elected because We en-
dorsed the principle embodied in
these platforms. If any of us did
not endorse the principle we ought,
as honorable men, to have declined
the nomination. To accept, and to
solicit the votes of the people, and
after election to say there is nothing
binding in the platforms is, to say
the least, of questionable honor.
The people were terribly in earn
est in this matter. They saw the
gross injustice and unfairness OF
this infamous law; they with singu-
lar unanimity, demanded it's repeal
The delegates in the Republican con
vention sent there to protect the
rights and assert the interests of the
railroad companies, entered no pro-
test. There was no note of dissent
from them. In that topic all
agreed, although great the diver
gence of opinion and fierce the con
test on other points.
al am in favor OF its repeal be
cause l believe it to be in conflict
with the Organic Act of this Terri
tory. The language of that funda
mental law is this:
"All taxes shall be equal ant
uniform, and no distinction shall b.
made in the assessment between
different kinds of property, but thu
assessment shall be according to thu
value of the property"
The Gross Earnings Law is not
nor was it intended to be, a tax OF
the franchise of the railroad com
pany. The intention of the logisla
ture can only be roughly inferred
from the language used in tn
statute. From that language, TIT
plain intent and design is to tax thu
property of the company, not by th'
rule of ral,e, as provided in the Or
ganic Act, but by rule Of produc
tiveness, or of gross earnings. L
not such a statute in conflict will
the Organic Act? What application
has the rule of value in any sucl
proceeding?
But legal astuteness has dis
covered, in one instance, at least
that it was the design of the Legis
lature, in passing the act, to tax thu
franchise of the company simply
and to exempt from assessment ant
taxation tue millions in value o
other property belonging to the rail
road companies. Such O Wow il
highly complimentary to the yearn
ing generosity of q majority of tina
Legislature for those poor railroad
companies! But Republics are pro
verbally ungrateful; they are all a
home, resting on their honors ant
enjoying the beatitudes of domesti
bliss! In their names protes
against any such construction.
assert that they used no Language
from which any such intent can b.
inferred. If such be the rightfu
construction, what an enormous jok
it must be on the railroad companies
1 would suppose their earnes
prayer would be, "Good Lord, de
liver us from the logic of GU
friends!'
The position is this: This much
abused law is but tax on the fran
chise of the company-their right O
privilege to do a railroad business
You may tax their other property,
you please. Well, we will b
pleased to do SO! Who, by the way
is teaching US this beautiful philos
ophy of taxation? 1 will not say tn
attorneys of the railroad companies
but the advocates of the validity O
this law. The Judge continued il
this strain for some time, but W
pass to the next point.
3d-He was opposed to this Law
because he believed it to be unequal
unwise and unjust. First, Their
were two kinds of railroads in thi
Territory; those having q Ian,
grant and those having none. Tn
law is an unjust discrimination
against the latter class, and many O
their lines were built by the har,
cash of the people of the Territory
The first named class were built b,
the proceeds of lands donated b,
1