The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-17
THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DEMANr


10 the Elator. On MONDAY, January b,
the directors of Seattle school district.
No. !. made formal demand upon the
county commissioners that a pro rata
share OF all penalty and interest paid into
the county fund upon all delinquent taxes
paid since June s. 1880, be apportioned TO
said district. The demand so made was
based upon the decision OF the supreme
court of this state in the case OF Tacoma
School District No. 10, respondent. VS..
John r Hedges. treasurer, appellant.
rendered November ii, 1895. The board of
county commissioners took the demand
under advisemenf, and finally, in an in
formal way, notified the school board that
the hope was entertained that compli-
ance with the demand would not be in
sisted upon, and at the same time assigned
reasons for the hope expressed. But on
Friday. February IA, the school board by
a unanimous vote demanded of the county
the payment of the lump sum of $4,000.
as and in full satisfaction of its claim
against the county under the aforesaid
decision of the supreme court.
That the taxpayers may understand the
cause for this peremptory demand by the
school board upon the county 1t will be
necessary to recite in part the decision Of
the supreme court under which the de-
mand was made.
Tacoma school district No. 10 brought
an action against John 3. Hedges. treas
urer of Pierce county. for the recovery OF
all the penalty and interest collected by
him upon the delinquent school tax for
that district, and paid by him into the
county fund. The question presented TO
the supreme court by the record made up
In the court below, where judgment had
been rendered in favor of the school dis
trict was: What is the proper DISPOSE
ton OF interest and penalty upon delin-
to- To
torneys for the treasurer that the penalty
and interest should go into the general
fund OF the county for the payment of
salaries of county officers"
The school district contended that each
OF the funds for which taxes are levied is
entitled to such a portion OF the penalty and
interest as the tax so levied bears TO the
entire tax
I will state now for the benefit Of those
who do not know what disposition has been
made OF the penalty and interest collected
upon delinquent taxes. that II has been
the practice OF county treasurers to pay
such moneys into the county fund beliey-
ing. as each treasurer undoubtedly did
that such was the law by implication, IL
not expressed by statute. But the supreme
court in the case referred TO held that while
such disposition was proper under the plain
provisions OF the revenue law of 1879 that
law having been repealed by the revenue
law OF 1893 II not by prior legislation, and
the law of 1898 being silent as to any dis
position OF penalty and interest. the con-
tention that the penalty and interest col
lected Is an increase OF the fund on ac-
count of which such Is paid. must be sus-
tanned The court affirmed the Judgment
of the court below. which was In substance
that Tacoma school district No. 10 have
Judgment against John b. Hedges, treas
urer. for the penalty and interest collected
by him upon all delinquent school taxes
paid by the taxpayers OF said school dis
trict No 10 since January IL. 1894. Imme-
diately thereafter Tacoma school district
No. 10 brought a second action against
Treasurer Hedges for pro rata share OF
all penalty and interest collected upon all
delinquent taxes paid in since June 6. 1884,
and recovered judgment in the superior
court Of Pierce county for the sum OF
$1,000. Hedges did not appeal. but soon
thereafter issued warrants against the gen.
eral fund IN payment Of both judgments,
amounting In all to more than $4,000.
The question now before the county COM
misioners OF this county Is not should the
demand made by the school board be COM
Piled with. but rather should a compliance
with the demand be insisted upon?
The supreme court has said that the de-
mand Is legal But believe l voice the
sentiment Of my two colleagues in the as
sertion that IL the interests OF the taxpay-
ers of this county were TO be considered
fairly and impartially by the directors OF
school district No. they would no longer
insist upon compliance with their demand.
The reasons that I shall assign why
school district No. should waive its right
10 any proportion of the penalty and in
terest heretofore collected and used for
general purposes were presented by Chair
man Gasch and me to the board OF direc-
tors at their meeting last Friday. when
they made a demand for the payment or
lump sum of $4,000.
If the payment Of the $4,000 demanded
should be made by order OF the commits
sioners a demand for pro rata share OF
penalty and interest by each and every
one Of the other 100 school districts as well
as by the ninety-four road districts and
the incorporated towns Will follow In quick
succession. This VIII be the result OF the
example set By their wealthy and powerful
neighhor. Seattle school district No. ]. BY
the assistance of p. p. Padden. deputy
county treasurer, / have been enabled 10
approximate the penalty and interest col
lected on all delinquent taxes paid into
the treasury since June s. 1880. at about
100000. Twenty-Five thousand dollars OF
this large sum OF money may properly be-
long TO the general fund, leaving $4,000
to be spportioned among the other funds
How Will this affect the taxpayers OF Sc
attic school district No. !? VIII the pay
mert 10 IL OF the so 0oa demanded lessen
taxation, now a grevious burden TO every
citizen I answer not But upon the con-
trary the burden viii Re made heavier.
And whvP To every one conversant with
our financial condition IL IS wen known
that the property owners OF Seattle school
district No. l pay above three-fourths or
the tax levied for general purposes, In
other words pay three-fourths OF E,e gen
erai fund. out Of which fund tais s0WS
10 the first school district. together with
the sas.eoo 10 the various other districts
and funds must come II paid IL must be-
1t follows that the taxpayers OF school dis
trict No I. II they would and must nave
this great relief 90 demanded BY their
school board n the payment OF the a'ore-
said szo0la. viii in the end be Compelled
TO paw $4,000 ot such sum themselves
But viii the end have come when ne H.
600 shall have besn paid In taxi NO; the
sav,a taxnsve~s must bear three-fourths
OF the other So 900 going TO the otnsr dis
tricts and funds. IN short Tor the sup
-osed relief ~ that the payment cy the
county OF this $4,000 viii give the tax
PAYERS OF school district No j, the county
commissioners will OF necessity De COM
PEELED to levy upon them tax OF above
SO Coo 70 be paid within the next two
v.ars. Behold the rsssef to tax ridden
school district No. Il
But there Is another objection 10 q COM
pliance with this demand an o9ectioh tnAs
the county commissioners canros easily
surTnount II these various SUMS or
money. amounting TO s7s.oo or moFs, are
paid over IL Will be necessary 10 meet the
payment thereof BY the issuance OF gsnA<A
fund warrants. for there Is no cash on
hand out OF which payment can Be made.