The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-24
SEATTLE, FRIDAY, MAY 2f.
NO MONEY-NO JURY.

Whatever may be the motive OF Judge
stallcup in Identifying himself with what
may be called "outre" proceedings. he is
entitled TO hearing. His suit against the
city of Tacoma 10 enjoin pay
ment OF the interest on its water
bonds was not such method
OF reaching his object as could be com
mended on the part OF a judge. His OBJ
ject might be a meritorious one and his
course as lawful as taking advantage OF
the statute of limitations. but II was one
that does not seem to be In keeping with
the judicial ermine.
His latest act Is even more sensational.
and his judgment is questioned by his
colleagues on the bench, but he has ut
tered some truths which are forcing them
selves into prominence. The judge has
vacated the order empanelling jury.
on the ground that the county has no
money to pay jurors. The county is In
debt TO the constitutional limit and he
considers that tho people should run the
government within the limit "or else we
are incompetent to mete out self-gov-
eminent"
IL cannot be denied that any indebted
ness beyond the constitutional limit could
not be collected: and II is equally true
that II laws may be disregarded there Is
no assurance OF stable government.
But these general theories may be laid
aside for the time. IL is more 10 the pur-
pose 10 discuss what Judge Stallcup
points out as the two principal defective
features In our system. ''The first" he
says. lis this: The sale on account OF de-
linquent taxes should occurseach year. so
that we could have money on hand 10 run
our government for such year. instead of
taking place two years after taxes be-
come delinquent. Another serious draw
back is that no one is willing to buy tax
certificates. so that our local government
is without money to run It. until the
money Is paid in by the taxpayer him
self. The second defect IS that there is
never any distinct fund for any specified
purpose
They are not the principal defects In our
system: but they are serious enough. The
biennial tnkering with our revenue sys-
tenn Is not merely mischievous-it is
vicious. II Is leading TO a confusion which
in year or so will impose heavy burdens
on property. and OF course on the tax
payer. The muddled condition of tax GER
tihcates has already seriously retarded
the sale OF property. and the public service
has been deprived of the use OF money 10
run It's business.
Our legislature seems 20 swing back
wards and forwards between undue sever
fly and silly leniency. The revenue law
OF 1898 WAS tolerahle medium meas
ure. and with few amendments
such as experience suggested. ought 20
have been retained. The reduction ~ The
heavy interest and penalty was a mercl-
ful concession 70 the exceedingly hard
times. but Il went too far. The penalty
should have been abolished but the inter.
est kept up 10 figure that would not
make Il a matter or profit 20 hold back
the taxes
The consequences arc inevitable. Local
governments are required by LAW 20 es-
innate the expenses for the ensuing year
and 10 levy tax sufficient 70 defrav then,
and no more. II the corporation. county
or municipality, collects only 81 or ~ per
cent OF it's expected income Il must either
stop doing business in part. as Judge Stall.
cup suggests. or It must issue warrants
and trust 10 the honesty OF the people TO
redeem them when times get better.