The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-06
REETGRADE BONDS.
II Il Text Of the Supreme Court
Decision.
~ ) IMPORTANT SIDE ISSUES.
~ City Has Not Exhausted Its Limit
OF Indebtedness Front Foot
Assessment is Valid.

>s4I f<OuutEl JacODs lnefe WttS piSo~s' OO.--
missioner Rinehart, Aldermen Ponfins ana
Miller, Delegate MuIdoon and Mr. John whey,
wafssenting several persons interested In the
Tex1IE The full decision is - ioliows:
4 II. Austin ct al VS.. City OF Seattle no. 269.
ri ID August 1, 1891. There are two questions
sSa senfed for decision in this case:
p III sta-fs the provision Of Sec z, Art. s,
sEf charter OF the city OF Seattle, adopted
Get per l. 1890 constitutional, II providing that
. 10 tost OF improving streets IN that city shall
be aEsessed and levied upon the property bene-
ftetI thereby and abuttng tneIeon, 10 the cen
Ter Of the blocks or TO the distance OF 10 feet
land is not plated and that the said cost shall
Be asseseed upon such property IN proportion
% ID number Of feet Of such lands or lots front
seeond-it being conceded that the city OF Be-
attic has already passed the one and one-half
per rent. limit OF indebtedness, can 1t without
noDHIar vote TO increase its Indebtedness, issue
stree. Improvement bonds under the provisions
III see. 3, Of Art. s, OF SAID cnarteE
The first proposition, IL is claimed by the APP
peIisnfs must be answered in the negative be-
Gauss, under the constitution all taxes and
me1afs for such special purposes must be levied
a<cosding to the value Of the property taxed 1t
Is frte that Art OF the constitution expressly
nrnFsdes that taxes In the state of Washington
afaII be according to value, and also that they
shall be equal and uniform. Ii is true, also. that
II 1fs,st be conceded that special taxes
u1euts levied for local Improvements in cities
ard towns are levied under the exercise of a
branch OF the taxing powers OF the state. But,
5eet OF much controversy in the courts. we think
th1 doctrine il well established at this time that
the general use OF the term taxes in the con-
szati1ion does not necessarily include what il
meat by the term assessments in connection
w1tn street and other local improvements but
applies only to the larger exercise OF the sover-
eiEn power OF the state, either directly or
fbFongh its inferior instrumentalities of county,
city. town, school district, ETC., in raising gen
srnI revenues for the support and maintenance
OF government.
IN some OF the states, as Illinois, Wisconsin,
Tennessee aud Alabama, under their earlier con-
Kfikutions, in which there no particular
fBegfIon OF assessments or special taxes, but
only q general provision that taxes should be
equal and uniform and according to value, 1t
WA held By the courts OF those states that there
roula be no such thing as a special local assess
mens upon portion Of the property within the
limits OF q municipal corporation TO defray the
expenses Of improvements peculiarly beneficial
rnsa lA g Ill, sos Noble 81 vs. shie psPra ss
- Ala, $40; Weeks VS.. milwaukee,
10 Wisconsin, "a; Taylor VS. McBean Heisk,
that any improvement made by a municipal
corrnration which would authorize taxes of
any Kind to pay for it must be public improve
uenf, and therefore must be paid by the public
generally through the levy OF taxes upon the
1 whole community.
. In Alabama, under the constitution of 1875,
the provisions OF which arc very similar TO our
3 own, the case Of Mobile vs.. Dargan was disre-
n Earsied, aud the correctness OF its reasoning
criticised and denied. Mayor vs. Cline, 50 Ala.
And In Illinois, under her constitution
ct 1870, which contains provision
b siraost the exact language of section
sase OF Chicago VS.. Larned was held TO be no
longer applicable, the court holding that an
assessment according 10 frontage was not I'M
constitutional white vs. The People, "a H.,
Ia Peay vs. Little Rock, 81 Ark, 81,
No find the only case which holds. un-
Der a constitutional provision similar to
Our own, that an assessment accord
Ing to frontage is not lawful assessment.
THIS case was strongly relied upon in
lants point, but investigation OF IL
shows that the supreme court of that
state based its decision mainly upon the older
eases in Illinois aud wiconsin, some of which,
- we have seen, have since been overruled in
kne states where they were made; and the argu-
xnent In Peay VS.. Little Rock Is so clearly. we
tAlnk, based upon the theory that there can be
~ valid local assessment that its value as an
authority Is destroyed.
lection Of article Of our constitution is as
sec. 0. The legislature may vest the corporate
Authorities OF cities, towns and villages with
power To make local improvements by special
assessment or by special taxation of property
benefited. For all corporate purposes, all mu-
nseipal corporations may be vested with author
ity 20 assess and collect taxes. and such taxes
shall be uniform in respect 10 persons and
property within the Jurisdiction OF the body
leyyiug the same"
The discussion 81 this identical section in tho
White Va, The People supra, is so thorough and
full that IL 10 not necessary for us 10 enter pou
further examination. In this the legisla-
ture has seen fit 10 leave the matter of determia.
ing in what mode street assessments shall be
levied to the people OF the city of Seattle, and
they have chosen frontage" as their system
Concerning this method, Cooley on Taxation
page GA, ID ed, says. ain many Instances .
the legislature has deemed il right and proper
~ take the line OF frontage the most practical
and reasonable measure of probable benefits
and making that the standard, to apporton
the benefits accordingly. such measure of APP
rortionment seems az first blush To be perfectly
arbitrary, and likely To operate ia some cases
with great injustice, but il cannot De denied
that. in the case of some improvements, front
nge is very reasonable measure of benefits
much more just than value could be. and per
haps approaching equality nearly as any esti-
mate OF benefits made by the judgment OF men,
However this may be, the authorities are well
Hnited In the conclusion that frontage may law
fully be made the basis of apportionment"
Adopting these views, we do not see why we
uhuuid disturb the charter PROVISIONS
second-A general demurrer was sustained to
the complaint in this case in the court below
aud the appeal is from = Judgment against the
plaintiff entered thereon, The com plant shows
that the authorities OF the city OF seattle had
after proper proceedings, ordered the improve
ment OF Broadway, from the north side OF Yesler
avenue to De Forrest street. hy grading anf con
stracting sidewalks GA both sides OF the same,
and that they were about 90 issue certain bonds
for the cost OF the Improvement under ;he
terms of the charter. Tho charter art : soc ~
provides. "There shall be two modes Of max.
Ing payment for such local impr0yements To-
wit: Immediate payment and payment by
bonds aud the council shall ia the ordinance
proyidiug for such improvement declare in
which mode such payment shall be made
The mode 60 be- adopted shall be by payment
by bonds, except 10 case the owners OF more
than three-ffths OF the number OF the front feet
of the property fronting such street in the
district shall petition for the other mode at or
before the passage OF such ordinance, In which
case the council shall adopt the mode petitioned
for" And section reads: III payment by
bonds is 20 10 made for such improvement
then and in such ease each estimate aud roll
shall be made and returned. and corrections
made. and the notice gsyen- as Ia tie eighth
section herein above provided. snd the cost Aud
expense OF the improvement shall De assessed
against the lots and parcels oi land IS IN sad
nade a. therein stated. aud 3 copy at such roll
niec with the city treasurer. Bat The or'financ q
shall further declare ON Masking such levy. HAT
the sum charged against each sot and parcel ol
land may he paid IN not more Than ten equal
snuual payments, with Interest upon thc whole
sum charged Rt the rate Of per ceat pcl
snnaui. the iatereSt TO be paid annually. and ths
city treasurer shalt procesd % CO. ect the amount
due esch year in the same manner As provided
Cor collections In section hereof, ana Ia al
cases Of such payments by bonds, tue city coUn
Whole estimated cost of such improvement
less the eost of such crossings. aud
the amount assessed against lsnas q
Washington, state university, eouaty OF King,
city OF seattle. or any school district such
honds shall he called 'locai improvement bonds
district NO. , of the city 81 seattle. shah be
payable not more than ten yesrs after date
witt interest ~ a rate no; exceeding per cent
per annugn. payable semi annually 8, the ofics
OF she city treasurer. such bonds shalt be sold
after thirty days public notice thereof given. g
the highest bidder therefor, but n NO case sba.
such bonds ~ sold for less than par, and tQs
proceeds shall be applied IN psyment % suct
Improvement the principal and interest al
which bonds shall De Nsid hv the CITY fFoH