The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-09-30
GROSS EARNINGS TAX,
An Issue Of the Year 1883
Revived in the Courts.
SUIT OVER REPLEviNEp HORSES.
Their Ownership 1t the Time or Their
Sale in Dfspute-suit Between
Handlers Of Hops.

case OF unusual intercs. and importance 70
The city, which was begun in 1856, came up yes
terday before Judge Lchtenberg II Is the suit
OF the Columbia q Puget Sound Railway COM
pany against A. Chfiberg. treasurer OF the city
ct the time named. The attorneys for the rail-
road company then were Mcknight, Ferry 4
Mitchell. OF which firm z. P. Ferry IL now gov
ernor OF the state for the county J. r. Ronald,
now mayor OF Seattle. and for the city C. IL
Hsnford. then city attorney and now United
States judge. Tho Judge of the third territorial
district court, before which IL was brought waa
Hon. Roger =. Greene James seavy was clerk
Of the court and James p. Ludlow deputy. Yes
terday the attorneys were, for the company,
Andrew F. Burleigh and J. Z. Lilly: for the
city, James B. Howe, assistant corporation
counsel
The subject OF controversy IL the assessment
in 1885 by the city OF Seattle of the property of
the railroad a, $3.50 for its two and one-haN
miles of right-of-way, sos, go for its real prop
erty, and s6s,l for its personal property the
taxes amounting to u ,9si12 The company 70.
fused to pay and the suit was brought to enioIu
The city from selling the property for delin-
Quent taxes.
The company claimed that under the gross
carnins law of 1888 it Was taxed in full, the in
tent OF the Law being to include all taxation
under its provisions. The company paid into
The territorial treasury under that law ia 1884
ss.olL4o; 1885, $500 e; 1856, A655.24: 1857,
E,4SSS, wacn the act was repealed.
The county also assessed the property aud the
question WAS argued before Judge L.chtenberg
last fall, with tho result of q decision in the
railroad company's favor. the court upholding
the constitutionality Of the law, the main issue
raised. When the case came up yesterday
Judge Lehtecberg said he had already passed
upon the question Mr.. Howe admitted that the
court had. but he raised the new point that the
state law did not apply to the city,
which had been given the power to tax all prop
erty within its limits-the county had only
general power OF taxation and must be governed
by the general state law; but the case OF the
city Was entirely different, rs it had . distinct
The city acted under . later and q special
give way. As an illustration of the distinction
he pointed ont that tho revenue derived from
the gross earnings tax went 70 the territory and
county only, but no portion of it went to the
municipal corporation, and i: is for especially
municipal purposes that the charter right of
corporate taxation IL granted by the legislature.
Mr. Burleigh, In reply, based his argument
upon the specific terms Of the statute, which
were in one pace that the gross earnings tax
was ain lieu of any and all other taxes within
this territory" and in another that "the pay
ment OF such percentum annually shall be in
full OF all other taxation whatever"
Judge Lchterberg said he had gone into the
case very fully ut the former hearing, and
although the point presented by Mr.. Howe was
new. he felt satisfied the intention of the legis-
latnre at the time was to encourage railroads by
limiting taxation to results, and he should find
for the plaintiffs. M Howe gave notice OF
appeal