The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-05-13
NOTE FROM JUDGE JACOBS.

SEATTLE, May IL, 1891.
To THE EDITOR: Criticism in proper spirit Is
always commendable and has tendency to lead
to correct conclusions. This remark lie prompted
by the fair and temperate editorial in your
valued paper OF this morning entitled collecting
the Poll Tax" Two ordinances have been
drawn by me providing for the proper assess
nent OF the persons and property subject to
assessment in the city of Seattle. The first au-
thorized the city comptroller to employ the
county assessor to make the proper assessment.
This ordinance was In the interest of economy.
My own ideas were that the ordinance went fur
Their in its authorization than by construction Il
was adiudged to go, and when informed OF its
limited construction and operation, i drew the
ordinance you criticise.
Your objection to this ordinance Is, II cor
rectly understand you, that 1t contains two SUBJ
iecss. / suppose these subjects ars; first, the
assessment, and, second, the collection of the
tax. While this Is true in a certain sense, as q
matter of fact, Is Il obnoxious to the objection
that IL Is in conflict with the city charter or
state constitution The constitution provides
as follows "No bill shall embrace more than
one subject and that shall DO expressed In the
title, section 49, article 2
The charter uses the following language:
'Every ordinance shall be clearly entitled and
shall contain but one object, which shall be
clearly expressed in Its title," section ID, ar
ticle 4.
used In the constitution, and the word "object"
in the charter. Now, while these words have
received, so far as I am informed, about the
same judicial construction, as to the extent of
meaning If there is difference IL is in favor of
the greater extent of meaning of the word
"object,' for that includes ali of the means nec-
essary for It's attainment. Now, what is the OBJ
ject here7 Plainly the collection of the road
poll tax. Before it is collectible IL must be as
sessed, for assessment is one OF the steps neces-
sary to the collection or the object The tie OF
en- ordinance, logically aud legally speaking
should contain some generic word, and the pro-
visions of the ordinance can only include the
species and classes of the genus named or IL an
object is to be accomplished, statement of the
means in an orderly manner necessary for the
legitimate accomplishment or securing Of this
object. narrow construction of this constitu-
tional or charter provision would break all stat
utes and ordinances up into fragmentary laws
This was not the intent OF either the constitu-
ton or charter makers. As the old organic
act expressed ii, ITO avoid improper intlv ences
which may result from intermixing in one and
the same act such things as have no proper re-
lstions to each other, every law shall embrace
but one object and that shall be expressed In
the title" 1t cannot be said that the assess
Inent and collection of taxes have no relation
to each other. In harmony with the views
above expressed, have before me the act OF the
last legislature, entitled IAN act TO provide for
the assessment and collection OF taxes in the
state of Washington, and declaring an erner-
| gency." This act, known the "Forrest BILL"
makes full and detailed provisions for the
assessment and collection OF state and county
taxes: IL imposes penalties and in one instance
at least makes it a misdemeanor for the person
falling to nay his taxes when demanded Ger
taInly II the objection made against this ordi-
nance is good 1t is equally good when made
against this act o! the legislature. IN my judg-
ment neither the act nor the ordinance is liable
| 10 the objection wh=ch you urge against them
am glad to have the opportunity TO express
nv views on the objection you raised because
this Is not the first tine il has been presented
| Heretofore have Yielded 10 the objection and
| have incorporated the provisions, which is my
| Judgment could all properly 90 into one ordin.
| auce, into two or more ordinances. shall con-
| tinue to yield, although at the expense of much
| more labor. whenever can secure harmony and
| prompt action by so doing
| IN conclusion, I think ron mistake the
| grounds OF the opposition OF the members OF the
| house OF delegates who opposed this ordinance.
| The charter makes the comptroller the city as
| SCISSOR. They say you cannot confer on the
| treasurer powers conferred by the charter on
| such comptroller; THAI ghiS ordinance ATTEMPTED
| 20 do this, and therefore ought not 10 rass
There Is st least plausbltty in this position In
| harmony with this objection, drew an ordi-
nance giving the comptroller the power to do
the assessing, hut the toErd of aldermen on &C.
| court If the great cost aud the uncertainty OF
the collection Of this tax, desired the treasurer
| to bsve the power; hence the ordinance you
| c.iticise. Treating the assessment bui as
means or incident in the collection OF this tax
| saw nc objection to clothing the treasurer with
| the authority 20 make the assessment and col
| lection. believing that they must be simaltane
| ous in order 20 be effective In doing so only
| follow the anslogies of the state law.
O. JACOBS