The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-18
NORTH SHIP CANAL
Validity Of the County Tax
Soon to Be Determined.
BY APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.
Law of 1895 Authorizing the Levy At
tackled As Being Contrary TO the
state Constitution.


state Constitution.
The constitutionality of the county tax
OF u mill for the North canal viii soon be
passed upon by the supreme court The
case is entitled Thomas Lancey. Annie
Lancey and Emma Turner VS.. King coun-
~ and the county commissioners. and
when IL came up ON a demurrer before
Judge Langley January Il the court en-
tered a pro forma ruling sus tanning the de-
murrer TO the complaint and upholding the
constitutionality Of the law of 1875, under
which the commissioners levied the tax
The brief for the county. defendant and re-
spondent. filed with Clerk Gordon yester-
day for transmission to the supreme court.
sets out the fact of the appeal from the
judgment OF dismissal entered on the order
sustaining the general demurrer. the plain
tiffs electing to abide by their complaint.
The Objections to the Law.
In the complaint. which is set out at
length In appellants brief. plaintiffs as
sert the unconstitutionality of the law OF
1885. and pray that the act. together with
the proceedings of the county commission
ers. be adjudged void and OF no effect. Six
objections are made to the act
That IT embraces more than one subject.
is expressed in the title.
That it is void for the reason that its
operation in this instance will cause the
county to incur a debt in excess of the IL
per cent. limit, without the necessary con-
sent of the voters.
That tine act is repuGnant TO the first
preyiso of articleVIII, section 6, which de-
clares that mo part of the indebtedness
allowed in this section shall be incurred
~tf.sl Mt u
purposes
That the act violates article VIII. sec
ton Z, which provides that mo county
shall hereafter give any money or prop
erty or loan its money or credit 10 or in
aid of any individual. company or cor
poration. etc"
That the act is void because by its ope-
ration property acquired for the United
States is paid for through the taxing pow
ers of the state.
That the act is void because it author
ICES the exercise OF the states eminent do
main for the use and benefit of the United
States.
Sufficiency of Title of the Act.
Taking up successfully the above objec-
tions. the county contends that the con-
stitution does not prescribe the terms in
which the subject of a bill shall be set out
In its title. 1t will be sufficient If the sub
ject OF the act is so expressed in the title
as to indicate to all what that subject is,
or TO call attention to 1t. The provisions
of the act. as described In its different Sec
tons. 1t is contended. are not incongruous.
but. on the contrary, have an intimate
connection and rela ton to each other. The
condemnation and disposal OF land by
counties for public use. the right of the
county TO levy a tax in aid thereof, the
grant of the rights Of eminent domain to
counties for the purpose of such condem-
nation provisions for paying the indebted
ness contracted by such condemnation
proceeding. are declared to be germane
and the natural complement of each other.
constituting but one subject matter. which
is sufficiently expressed in the title of the
act.
The leading text writers, continues the
brief. sustain the position that the act is
valid. as do the principles enunciated by
the state supreme court. The assumption
that the act is void because its execution
will cause King county to exceed the legal
limit OF debt without the consent OF vot-
ers is stated as purely gratuitous, there
being no allegation in the complaint to
that effect and no presumption that the
officers of the county win not do their
duty. The act amply provides in section 4
for the contracting of all necessary indebt-
edness In compliance with all constitution
l
act in conflict with section T. article VIII,
OF the constitution. Neither the state nor
the United States is an Individual. asso-
citation. company or corporation within
the terms or meaning Of the section. and
the judiciary viii not. under color OF con-
struction. interpolate provisions in the
constitution
What Is a County Purposes
In answer to the objection that the tax
is not laid for a strictly county purpose, the
brief says.
1T cannot he doubted that the proposed
Improvement IS public improvement. and.
being such. is a public purpose for which
debt can be incurred or taxes levied ny the
state or ore of its municipal subdivisions.
II IS also as well settled as any law can he
that a municipality. when authorized there
to by the legislature. may levy taxes In aid
Of the construction Of railways, canals and
similar public improvements within or
touching their borders
The brief next states that canal. as IN
this instance. may he as strictly county
purpose as any other highway. or 4 bridge,
court house wharf or ferry. las it Is to
he constructed ny the general government.
II is unauestioaahlv for a public purpose,
and none OF the objections incident TO like
improvements undertaken by private cor
porations have any application. Il is also
within the borders OF the county. IL con-
meets the Sound with bodies Of fresh water
and VIII provide a fresh-water harbor
within the county ~ King. and the benefit
20 the people Of King county IS undenishie.
The purpose Of the tax IS therefore local.
Is wen as public and answers all consti
rutionai and legal requirements The posi-
ten that the canal IN this instance Is
county purpose is supported by the author
titles. both earliest and latest"
The Problem TO He solved.
Taking up the remaining objection. that
the act authorizes the exercise CO the
states em!aent domain for the use and
heneflt OF the United States the brief
enters into an extended discussion. finally
narrowing the problem 10 be solved to this
proposition is the use for which these
lands are TO be taken. T. g. A ship canal
between Puget sound and Lake Washing
tor. entirely within the county. a pubic
use TO the benefit OF the people Of King
ccau.yr'' on this proposition the br.ef
SAYS.
That Il T. such \ use IS apparent and
supported by all The authority on the sub
Jet. That the canal Is TO be constructed
b. the government does not change the
fact Of the public use ard benefit TO the