Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1893-01-06

iHl,u Dr.u. lIoI. 70,
Ir.vu 'tN OF b,n,,r. : col.
Wi
ihow,s 4, Gain. %, Mich 10
imhi'lpna Miller 80 IA state.
80
lu Mt'-ou Seattle. WASH STATE.
80 thr ,.uft Say. Nuiirc WIS ab
sn'ui'I, r',r..,f, iof although the
statute dii nui require. u i- q general
Ipru,lplr 81 Law. too veil known for
comment even that IN every proceed
inF whrfehy the spccih assessments
~" lowed u b. necessary ~ a con-tiiu.
rnt 81 due pfoco-s 81 law
II ia rule bounded upon thr first
principles Of natural Justice. Older
than written constitutions. that "A
citizen shall not be- deprived Of hs
life, liberty NJ property without an OPP
portunity to- bee heard In defense of
hi. rights. aud the constitutional pru-
VISION that no person shall hc uc.
pfivcd oi this Withuut due process 81
law has it, foundation ia this rule.
This provision j. tho most inrertant
guarantee oi personal rights to be-
found IN the federal or State Coustiiu-
ton. at isa limitation upon nrbi-
trary power, and rs guarantee against
arbitrary legislation. No citizen shall
bc arbitrarily deprived of his life, lib
crty or property. This the legislature
cannot do nor authorize To he done"
Stuart y. Palmer, supra.
Due process Of law il not confined
to Judicial proceedings, but extends To
every case which may deprive citizen
OF life. liberty or property, whether the
proceeding is Judicial, administrative
or executive in its nature"
Weimcr v. Bunbury, 30 Mich, POI.
Nothing is more clearly established
by n weight OF authority absolutely
overwhelming than that notice and
an opportunity tn he heard are indis
pensible to the validity of the proceed
ings."
County Of San Mateo V. Southern
Pac. X. r., supra.
mo case, il is believed. can be found
in which it was decided that this con-
stitutional guaranty did not extend to
cases OF assessments"
Stuart V. Palmer, supra.
1t is true that there arc some
species OF taxes to which the rule is
not applicable. They embrace poll
tax. license tax, and tax upon occupa-
tons, and the like, where the tax is
specific and operates upon all alike.
Taxes Of this and like kinds are plain
ly exceptions to the rule, because the |
hearing would be OF no possible value. |
In such cases the law fixes the amount,
and there is nothing left to inquire
into or determine.
Catch v. City Of Des Moines, supra.
Not so, however, as to questions in
vclved in the case under consideration.
There are many questions which may
be proper for the property owner to
present to the Council. He should
have the right to present the ques-
tions whether or not his property,
under a proper construction of the
ordinance, is subject to the assessment,
whether it is all within the requisite
limit, and whether the assessment OF
benefits made by the Assessor or
Council is fair, just and proportionate.
Also upon the question of what por-
ton of the cost of the improvement
should be borne by the public and
paid from the general fund in con-
sideration Of the benefits accruing to
the general public by reason of the
improvement. These and many other
questions may arise which require
the exercisement of judgment and
and upon which it is the
right OF the owner Of the property
sought to be assessed to be heard.
But in the ordinance under considera-
ton no provision is made for notice
of any kind or character to the prop
erty owner; no right to participate in
the proceedings is afforded him; no
provision is made whereby he may
meet either the Assessor or the Coun-
Gil to discuss his rights, submit SUBJ
jects for consideration, or offer his pro-
test or objections; and the ordinance
specifically declares that this ex-parte
proceeding OF the Council in arriving
1t the assessment, shall be final and
shall constitute the assessment on the
and the charter declares the
same shall become lien upon said
land which shall take precedence of
all other liens"
Asis said in County OF Santa Clara
v. R. R., supra: He may not sue
eeed in reducing his tax, but the law
affording an opportunity presumes
that justice will be done upon proper
hearing" H.
My conclusion is that because of
The want of any provision for notice in
either the charter, ordinances, Or reso-
lutions of the council, and the want of {
any opportunity for hearing, the
must be held to be invalid.
It is arbitrary, oppressive and unjust
and the proceedings had and done I'M
Ter the ordinance under consideration i
are such q departure from constitu.
,ional methods as to render them void. t
I do not determine that the city
nay not make a valid assessment
lnder its present charter without
The charter does not
provide for notice to be given to the
,wner, but it does not follow that by :
eason of this omission in the charter,
he City Council may not by proper
ordinance provide for some notice of
he assessment to be given.
JOHN MILLER MURPHY, of the ever Democratic
insiEuates that there would now be | Z