The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-12


ing provisions OF Law, is well established
y tns authorities. One Of the leading
cases on this question is that OF Mills VS..
tnarfston. 2 Wis, go. where Il was De-
cited that the reassessnent OF a tax under
new grant of authority IS rot reopen
Ing Of the judgment by which the former
assessment was declared invalid and pro-
ceedings Hereunder restrained. and that
u oid not conflict with the general rule
that statute which operates TO anuul or
set aside the final judgment OF a court OF
competent jurisdiction and to disturb or
Defeat vested rights Is void: the Gistinc-
taon being that the general rule had refer
enee 20 matters os mere private right.
This case involved a curative or remedial
ssztute-and we use the terms inter
ably-simjlar IN character 70 the
statute under discussion. The court. after
arguing other propositions. approaches
the one under discussion here in the fol-
lowing language:
The other principal question involved
In this case is one which has become trite.
and scarcely an open one. by repeated ar
g1nents and decisions in this court. as
well as Tn the courts OF other states. Il
relates TO the retroactive power % the
legislature over the subjects OF assessment
and taxation. where past proceedings have
proved defective or irregular. either for
want OF power in the local boards or Off
some existing provision os law. The cases
In which this question has arisen and been
decided are quite numerous and always
with one result. The authority of the leg
tSlature In this respect has always been
affirmed, where the subject acted or OPP
Grated upon was purely and exclusively
one Of taxation and assessment. and con-
cerned only the taxing power. The prin-
ciple.' SAYS the court. upon which these
and other similar decisions rest is that the
taxing power. when acting within its iegi-
innate sphere and unrestrained By positive
constitutional provision. Is a far-reaching
and unlimited power, which knows no
stopping place nor moderation OF force I'M
I'll II has accomplished the purpose for
which II exists. namely. the actual en-
forcement and collection OF the tax. II
moves constantly forward to its object un-
til that is accomplished. and. IL turned
aside by any obstacles or impedimenfs,
may return again and again 10 the same
tax or assessment until. the way being
clear. the tax Is paid, or the assessment
collected Such is the force Of this power.
or OF the sovereign body which exercises
IL. that 1t may remove all obstacles and
never cease 70 act until II has attained
the appointed end for which IL was dele
gated citing with approval CHM VS..
school district 81. Pa. ST. 433, and Mussel-
man vs.. Logansport - Ind. 30
In these cases il was decided that If the
legislature has antecedent power 10 au-
thorize tax IL can cure, by retroactive
law. an irregularity or want OF authority
in levying a.. though thereby a right OF
action which vested in an individual
should be Invested.
The same principle was announced by
the supreme court Of Minnesota IN the
case of st. Paul VS.. certain lots, y. w,
42f. The curative statute in that case was
no stronger than ours and it provided and
authorized the common council TO direct
a new assessment or reassessment when
Judgment Is denied on the original assess
ment, or the assessment set aside or de-
clared void for any cause whatever.
This question has been before the SUI
preme court of the United States I'm Spen-
Ger VS.. Merchant, 10 L. s., 345. There an
assessment had been made and a portion
OF the lots upon which the assessment was
made successfully contested the validity
OF the assessment: and the unpaid part of
the assessment, being something over S40,-
0o was returned for five years as uncol-
lected by the treasurer OF Kings county,
New York. to the comptroller OF the city.
This assessment was made under the stat
ute OF 1869. In 1871 the legislature passed
a curative act and directed the board Of
supervisors OF Kings county TO levy on the
assessment roll OF the town upon those
certain lots a sum equitably apportioned
among the several parcels comprising said
lana. luciuUlUE the interest WniCh haN AC-
crued. This levy was contested, was held
good by the court of appeals OF New York.
and was finally taken 10 the supreme
court OF the United States. where Il was
held that the act OF 1851 determined abso-
lutely and conclusively the amount OF tax
10 be raised and the property TO be as
sessed and upon which IL was to be appor-
toned: that each OF these things was with
In the power OF the legislature, whose ac-
ton could not be reviewed in the courts
upon the ground that IL acted unjustly or
without appropriate and adequate reason.
II decided that the legislature might COM
NIT the ascertainmeut OF the sum 10 be
raised and OF the benefited district to COM
missioners. but that q was not bound 10 do
so. and could settle both questions for it.
self, and when IL did SO its action was nee
essarily conclusive and beyond review
that the power OF taxation is unlimited.
except that u must be exercised for public
purposes. citing Weismer VS.. Douglas 81
~. Y. 81. and approving the words OF Chief
Justice Chase, in Veasie Bank vs.. Fenno
Wall, $50. that the judicial department.
cannot prescribe TO the legislative depart
ment limitations upon tho exercise of it's
acknowledged powers. The power 20 tax
may he exercised oppressively upon per-
sons hat the responsibility 81 the leCisia-
ture Is not 10 the courts but 10 the people
by whom It's members are elected
IN Williams We. Supervisors Of Alabama
10 L. s I54. the supreme court decided that
the mode IN which property should he ar
praised by whom ana when that shall be
done. what certificate Of their action shall
Ne furnished nv the board which does Il.
ana when parties may be heard for the cor
rcction Of errors. are all matters within
legislative discretion. and Il IS within the
power OF the state legislature 70 cure an
omission or I defective performance OF such
~ the acts required hy the law 10 be per-
formed by local boards IN the assessments
OF taxes as could have been IN the first place
omitted from the requirements Of the stat
ute or which might have been required 20
have been done At another time than that
named IN u.
I'm 70 Van Antwerp. 81 y. y. .fl. g was
held that the taxing power ~ the leEisla-
ture for public purposes Is unlimited. ex-
ceat as specifically restrained ny the con-
stitution. that where an assessment for
municipal improvements IS irregular. the
legislature may itself make. instead Of au-
thorizing. A re8ssessTent. II this be true.
Il certainly destroys the objection that the
legislature IN this instance did rot have the
nower 70 provide that the assessment could
he made BY the CITY council without the
rresentatl0n OF a petition ~ the property
owners. witch was provided bv the law
under which the first assessment was
made. To the same effect are. Weweu vs.
Rumale. 81 y. Y. -. McNnlen ". Auter-
son es T. s. s.. State ex Tel. Doyle VS..
Newark. "a y J T.. 80
'It Is announced nv sTr. Cooley 81 his
work On Constitutional limitations fifth
edition. page sas that the power 20 impose
taxes Sc one - unlimited in force and 80
searching IN extent. that the courts scarce
IL venture u declare that 81 IS subject 20 any