Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-02-21

Collector Of the City Of Olympia, in
lic County OF Thurston, and this ac
ton was brought to restrain him from
selling block of land fronting upon
Adams street for the amount of
special tax levied upon the block by
the city authorities for the expense of
grading the street. The complaint al
Council preceding, and leading up to,
the levy and threatened sale, against
the regularity of which no complaint
was made.
The ground OF the action was that
under the Act of the Legislature, ap
proved November 2Sth, 1888, incorpo-
rating the City OF Olympia, no author
ity was given to the municipal corpo-
ration to levy special taxes for grad
ing streets upon abutting property.
\ demurrer was interposed by the
Collector, but it was overruled by the
court below, and upon his declining to
plead further, judgment finally re-
straining him was entered.
BY this appeal we are asked to re-
view the judgment and say whether or
not the contested power exists.
1t would naturally be expected that
a lie. islaiive act which purported to
confer upon a municipal corporation,
created by its own terms, any power
to levy special taxes for the improve
ment of streets would clearly cover
the matter of grading, which must be
the beginning OF all street improve
ment. But In the act before us the
genius of legislation seems to have
been invoked to aid confusion and un-
certainty rather than order and preci
sion.
Section I. Provides, generally, that
the city "Shall have power to provide
for clearing, opening, grading, gravel
ing, improving and repairing streets"
&C., which clearly goes no further than
that the city may, out of its own
treasury, procured from general taxa
ton, do those things at the pleasure
of its Mayor and Council.
Section s gives the city power "to
construct and repair sidewalks, and to
carb, pave, grade, gravel and gutter
any street, &c, and to levy and col
lect special tax or assessment on the
lots and parcels of land fronting on
such street, &c, sufficient to pay the
EXPENSE of construction of said sideudiks
and grareling or pairing said street" &c.
Further along, after providing for as
sessment districts, the Section reads
"but, unless the owners of more than
one-half the property subject to assess
ment for such improvement petition
the Council to make the same, such
Improvement shall not be made until
two-thirds of all the members Of the
Council by vote, authorize the making
of the same."
Appellee maintains, (and it was ap-
parently SO held by the District Court
that the provision here made for the
levy of special taxes must be taken to
apply strictly to the particular kinds
of improvement named in that con-
nection, viz: Construction of side
walks and graveling or paving streets"
to the exclusion of repairing side
walks, and curbing, grading and gut
tering streets. This view is claimed
to be further strengthened by refer
ence to Section 96. providing for the
details of special assessments, where it
is enacted that in all cases when the
Council shall order the improvement
of any street or alley by the eonstruc-
ton of Sidewalks or grareling said
Streets" &c there shall be certain pro-
ceedings designated and leading to the
levy of special assessment therefor.
On the other hand, Section 90,
which is the first OF the sections pro-
viding specifically for the manner Of
levying these special taxes, (Chapter
Wild, enacts that whenever the City
Council deems it expedient to estab-
lish or order the grade of any street or
alley of the city, or to make any nm
prorement thereof, as authorized by Sec
tions 5, 6, 7, s, Q, and 10 of this act"
it shall cause survey, diagram and
estimate of the cost thereof to be
made, and filed with the City Clerk,
afor the inspection of the persons in
terested therein" and by Section "a,
if two-thirds in number OF the persons
owning property on the street, and
representing one-half of the property
thereon, do not demonstrate within
ten days, the Council is authorized to
proceed and "make the improve
ment."
Section So provides for an assessment
OF lots and an apportionment of the
whole of cost planking or graveling,"
pro-rata, although no previous men
ton has been made in the entire act
of any "planking' whatever.
Section 80, however, returns to the
general term and speaks merely of the
" cost of improvements" and requires
the Council to provide, by ordinance,
for its payment as apportioned, so,
also. do Sections JOG, 107, 10S and
109.
It is the duty of this court to give
10 the statute that force which its
provisions on the Subject OF street inn
movements will fairly sustain, al
though in all its expressions 1t may
not he entirely clear.
Counsel for the Appellee has pre-
.ented us With numerous authorities
IN the effect that the power to levy
special assessments must be plainly
and explicitly given, or it cannot be