The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-04-13

The first step In what is intended 20 Re
test case OF TIRE provision in the new
revenue law relating TO the remission Of
penalties aud interest on assessments for
local street improvements was taken yes
rersiay in the superior court Corporation
Counsel Brown lied a petition asking that
an order be issued restraining County
Treasurer Whittlessy from RENTING PEN
allies and interest On street Improvement
taxes. and that he BE ordered 10 show
cause why q temporary injunction should
rot issue Judge Moore granted the pc
tition and named April Is as the time FOR
hearing arguments on The motion.
The controversy over the provision OF
this act relating 70 street Improvement
taxes came up last week when County
Treasurer Whsttlesey sent 10 Comptroller
Parry a copy OF the opinion OF the attor-
hey geueral on the set The question arose
through the refusal Of the city treasurer
10 accept the amount rendered by the
county treasurer as his collections for the
week ending April g for the reason that
ths report Of collections showed remission
Of penalties and interest on local assess
Tnents Before receiving the opinion eff
The attorney general. Corporation Counsel
Brown By his assistant. +. d. Upton,
submitted an opinion or the question at
issue. which was sent TO Treasurer Whit
tIesey. Upon the receipt OF this the treas
urer then wrote 70 the attorney general
for an opinion. Both the opinion OF thu
corporation counsel and the attorney gen.
ersl are given below. fully explaining both
sides OF the case.
Corporation Counsefs OpiniOn-
The following opinion on the matter was
submitted 10 City Comptroller Parry by
Corporation Counsel Brown. through as
sistant r.. b. Upton, at the request OF the
former:
In response to your request for an opin-
ion of this Office as 10 whether costs. PEN
alfies and interest. etc. are RENTED on
assessments for local improvements by
section lis OF the revenue law, recently
passed by the legislature OF this state,
would respectfully submit the foAoWtng,
which, among other reasons, constrdln5
this department 10 believe that such as
sessments are not included IN said act,
that even II they should have been so in
eludel, the legislature would have ex-
ceeGcd its power in that respect:
"FirSt-Assessment liens for local i'm
prcyements are not expressly included IN
the section QI9 OF the bill renting the
costs, penalties and interest. IL Will be
noted that the act section lsl RENTS only
state, county. school, district, road dis
trict and municipal taxes levied for the
year 1886, and previous years. local as
sessment Is not q municipal tax. within
tho meaning OF the act, FOR IL VIII be
noted that the act RENTS only municipal
taxes levied for certain years. Now, AS
seSsments for local improvements are not
lcvied for any year, but are levied at any
time after certain charter and statutory
requirements have been complied with.
and are in no sense municipal taxes within
the meaning of the term employed BY
the legislature; and further, IL Is evident
by the context, that the legislature In
tended by the term municipal taxes TO
mean only those levied in each of the
years therein named for general munich
pal purposes, as state and county taxes
are levied.
paving assessments and other local I'M
provements one ofetwo methods OF pay
ment has been pursued by the city, under
its charter and the law. Wig: Frst-Eltner
warrants have been issued bearing 10 per
cent. interest, or. second, local improve
ment bonds bearing also a fixed rate or
interest. In each case contract exists
between the city and the holders OF thess
warrants or bonds. as the case may be-
that the city will collect from the proper
~ owners sufficient sum TO pay the
principal OF these bonds or warrants. with
Interest thereon at the rate agreed TO be
paid.
Now, any law which would result In
compelling the city TO accept from the
property ownor any sum less than an
amount sufficient TO pay the principal OF
these warrants or bonds with the inter-
late the provision OF the constitution OF
the United States which forbids the states
passing any Is W. impairing the obligations
Of contracts. We think ii is scarcely nee
this principle, as they are numerous, ele-
menfary and well known
"A law which would IN effect compel
these warrant holders and bondhoidsrs
10 accept a lower rate OF interest than
that therein by express term. or by i'm
piication provided. would be as clearly
Unconstitutional az would law compel
ling the holder Of a promiss0ry note exc
cuted prior 20 the enactment OF the law to
accent lower rate OF interest than that
I'm the note specified.
We think that either OF the two argu-
rnents hereinhefore advanced Is sufficient
to demonstrates that II was neither the In
fatura to remit the penalties or interest on
these assessments Tor local improve
mcnts"
Attorney Generals Opinion
Upon a request from County Treasurer
WhittIesey. Assistant Attorney General
Vance submitted the following as his In
terpre-aticn Of the law;
You will notice that section rs OF the
revenue act applies 20 all state, county.
school district road district and munich
paNty taxes levied for the year lsa5 and
previous years The language of said sec
! lion convfnces me that municipality taxes.
whether for Purposes of local improve
ment or other purposes. are intended 20 be
embraced in its provisions. I arm con-
WINGED further that the date of Delinquent
CT therein referred 10 Is the actual data
at which taxes become delinquent TO the
at which they become DELINQUENT 10 the
county. The ret amount Of such taxes
as originally levied means the amount az
such original levy with no cost penalty
or interest added save and EXCEPT the s
per cent. per anuum from date OF celin-