The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-17
OLD DELINQUENT TAXES.

The objection raised TO the sale by the
county OF property upon which taxes are
delinquent for 1880 and prior years raises
some questions of great Importance 10
holders OF land under tax title. and II Is
very probable that state legislation may
be necessary In order TO afford relief. For
several years the changes IN the state rev.
enue laws have been SO radical and fire.
quent that 1t is doubtful II any general
judicial decision could be made TO cover
all the varied circumstances arising in the
past ten years.
Sweeping provisions have been made for
future action In most OF the laws without
an adequate consideration for the condi-
tons which had arisen under prior laws.
The original theory was good enough. 1t
was that when a property owner failed
TO pay his tax. the county might sell the
whole or a sufficient part OF the land to
afford the county that revenue 20 whiea
It was entitled by the levy. The induce
ment OF high rate OF interest was added.
the presumption being that the original
owner would eventually redeem and REIN
burse the purchaser at tax sale with an
additional profit The high rate of inter-
est was demanded SO as TO make It I'M
profitable for the owner TO hold back his
tax and invest the money for the revenue
it would bring him.
Most property so sold has been redeemed
from time TO time, but much Of ii was
abandoned by owners who either died with
out leaving any record of ownership. or de-
SPARED OF paying the accumulated back
taxes. Such property was sold each year,
In many cases the purchaser buying with
out regard TO the previous years tax. his
purpose being not 70 acquire title but to Sc
cure the high rate of interest Later laws
have undertaken to pass a good title to pur-
chasers who kept up the payment OF subse~
quent taxes as bona fde owners OF the
land. When that title passes the owner has
assumed that he escaped liability for taxes
prior to that year, and while most pur-
chasers would be careful. IL the property
were valuable. to see that there were no
outstanding certificates. 1t was not abso-
mtely necessary that they should do so.
Most trouble Will. however. arise over
property which. being unsold, was bid in
10y the county. and being then the nominal
owner. one question viii be whether the
county In subsequently selling to bidder
for a later years tax did not forfeit its
right TO the amount for which It had pre-
viously bought in the property.
The trouble now arising was long ago
toreseen. and this paper may claim to
have pointed out the necessity for legisla-
tive action TO extend TO such cases before
the act OF 1858 was passd. The number OF
pieces Of property bought in by the coun-
~ runs into the thousands. and until
year or so ago. II was exceedingly diff
cult To determine even by careful search
Of the records how FAR piece OF property
was encountered,
Both county and city treasurcrs have re-
Gently done much 70 ohviate the dlflcul-
ties by bringing forward from old records
taxes whose payment is at all in doubt.
Il IS probable that some taxes will have
10 BE paid twice owing 10 the primitive
methods OF issuing receipts in the earlier
Ire OF the county, but they viii not be
many. The collection Of city and county
taxes az one Office IS another OF the i'm
proyements made by recent laws.