The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-05-30
ARE NOT LAWFUL.
Cnnnaucnv Op6snAsn ~ a. S1Deens
esast Desgoefng Usesnstftufssoaa
SukAivisfeas anA 3 Of sectieA
~ The Revenne Law Passed ~
O. Lest LaglS1a1UrA

OLYMPIA. WISH. May 3.-Tne fun
text OF the suprEue cOlrt ceczsfoa De-
csaring unconstitutional the exemption
provisions at tina, nGw revenue law Is a.
follows:
STATE OF wAsHrScTDE, Elk REL.
Frederick q. Cisamberiin ct al, respond
enss, VS. s. W. Daniel, as county as
LIANT. No. ssi5. Filed May Is, lss7.
This ,as sss san sy 'as writ 81 pro
hibi;ion against the appellant as the as
SCISSOR Of Spokane county. prohibiting nim
from allowing the exemptions prosldea
for IN subdivisions and s. OF section :. OF
the revenue law passed by the last iegis-
iasure. These provisions OF the law ex-
empt each person Iiable 10 assessment
amount no; excse:.nx $50. and also Inn
provemenfs upon land OF each person la
bic to assessment to al amount not ex-
ceeding $50, II Is cofltended that these
provisions OF the statute are unconssitu-
fionaI, as being In conflict with sections
] and Of article OF the constitution:
a demurrer was filed 60 the respcndents
complaint, which was overruied, and ap.
peiiant refnsing TO plead further. maj
Judgment Was rendered directing the Is
saance OF writ OF proh.bition against
paint. From this Judgment the present
appeal - prosecuted.
Secttens and Of article 2 OF the con.
st,sution. under the title OF Revenue ana
"ssetioa 1 An properly In the state not
exempt under The laws OF the United
be taxed IN proportion 10 Its value. TO be
ascertainet as provided 10y law. The
IegtsiAture shalt provide BY law for an
CT rareaa,e, TO defray shs4 estimated ordi-
nary expenses OF the state for each fiscal
year. And for. the purpose OF paying
iat lat shall provide for levying a tax an
nually sufficient 10 pay the annual inter-
est and principal OF such debt within
twenty years from the finai passage OK
Sec 2. The legislature shall pro-
vide By law a Uniform and equal rate or
assessment and taxation on ALI property
in the state according to its value in
money, and she'll prescribe such regula-
tons by general law as shall secure
just valuation for taxation Of all property.
80 that every person and corporation shall
pay a tax In proportion 10 the value OF
his. her or Its property. provided. that
deduction Of debts from credits may BIO
nnsr Of the United States and Of the
state. counties school districts and other
municipal corporations. and such other
property as the legislature may by general
laws provide. shall be exempt from taxa
ton"
RI IL the contention OF the respondents
that the constitution. IN both section ! and
all property. and that the clause In the
latter part of the second proviso OF section
VIZ. and such other properly $500 as the
must be construed to mean such other
property Of like kind and character as the
property specially described II the proviso:
rule at e1usden. generis. The contention
of the appellant. however. Is that the rule
Of ej'4sdem senaIis is not applicable in the
construction OF this law. and Ii was argued
with much fnrcs by the attorney who sup
ported the legality of the law in the case
Of Buchanan W.. Bauer. companion case
1zsf,t rd n mad In Vuyifh
and al the same time az, this case. that,
irasruueh as the proviso mentions Spectf-
ieally property OF the United States and
Of the state. counties, school districts and
ether municipal corporations. the genus or
class OF property which was comprised In
re .prcyieo vas made full and complete
municipal corporations" and that. consc-
auently, there was no room for the appli-
cation Q; the rtaie Of etnsdcm geasrts. so
far as the other expression such other
PROPERTY Is concerned. and that reces-
sartlv the expression such other prop
erty" referred 10 property outside and in
meratrd.
TO student az technical logic this argu-
fnent would appeal very strongly, but IL
IS doubtful IL the members OF the consti-
tu'ioHal convention INDUCED in so fine
discrimination OF the Use OF words and
phrases. and were governed by such re-
fined Distinctions. II may be conceded that
ire rule which Is urged by the appellant
Ia this case In the correct one. and must
b. followed by the court. viz. that where
the language OF The act is plain and IN
ambiguous There Is no room for construc-
tion. Also, II may be conceded that the
policy ~ tsspoicy OF the law Is 4 matter
which the courts will not consider but
that thaf is consideration resting entire
- within the discretion OF the legislature
air. Sutherland. In his work on Statu-
tory Construction. Sec. Is. SAYS:
when the meaning of a statute il clear
and its provisions are susceptible OF but
one snternretatfen. that sense mus. be
accented a n n
the Iaw itself. to be cifscted BY he legs i.
ia,ars and not by juals.al construction"
Ana ibis. no doubt. Is the accepted rule
but there IRE socie qualifca tons or, rath-
or, explanations. Of this rule. one OF which
the author JUST above quoted proceeds 10
sJfe in the following language:
But an Interpretation Of statute
winch Fnnss lead 20 consequences which
are fsiisehieNods and absurd IL inadmtx-
sele. 4 the statute Il susceptible of an
other Interpretation by which such con.
sequences can IA avoided"
Another qualification is that ..vhe-a
werds conflict with each other. where the
atHereEt citGyns of the instrument haar
np,n each ether. and would he incons:st-
eat ahiess tie natural ani common I'M n,
o. the words he varied. construction be-
comes necessary
II the rrevlse mentioned were 20 be con.
ssrued alone there 10 little deabt that n
would bNtr the construction eontensiea for
by appellant oBt in this instance IL ss-
comes necessary. under all the rules nf CON
erence 20 she whole SIX sson Nr Suther-
iana ssi s.esiton ~. In speaking on thls sub
SECT. says.
The practical inquiry Is USUALLY whs.
particular provision. clause or word
Ere&ns. Tie ANSWER il one must proceed as
10 would with any other composition
sirne u win fvterpnee 10 the ieadsnzs idea
or purpose OF the whole instrument TIE
wa0ls ana every part mus; he considered
4 ne EeDcrAl intent sAcai be kept IN yiea
3n determining tae scope and rrsean5aw az
anf pert TAs survey aud comparison are
NECESSARY ~ ascertain the pl.rra,ss ~ tns
act aai 10 max al the parts "a --,-,1fsi,y,x
hey arc 20 bss brought into accavf Il frar-
ttcahEe. and taus tk possible. give ssusss-
lie and iuteiilSaA!e eTecI 10 each in far
tasraRce or sae general design. etat-
Nte should se 50 construed as whole
and So several parts ~ most rsa srIl 49,,
80 accomplish tire legislative purpsss II
py3ctscshsc. effect must re given "a all ne
s&ug4axe employed. ard iacaux stenf ex-
real intent ~ she scgsslaxwre''
\ gam. in section slai
'~Esae presumption Is that Ire layvees ke~
Ass definite pneEsose sa every casrt sY,s-lt
ard haS adapted ard formulated shs Sd
sts.Aary provisions IN harmony v!sh ,as,
iBrp<s~S,
-. IA che cAnsts tutsAnai provisions under
.ssctfssloh. 20 Obtain tlss actual meaning II
1As clause ANA Sasch esasg pran@rsy as
;he legislature usAy hy general sswS era-
wade sssAN - exempt Rroxaz taxa staa - ss,..s
cause sgstsHS e r@Sf ift eoun~egsaga asteh tNe
aS{ ga aAs-a u oceuT2. &aa WITH relation
~ Eha 3 wf0skEeE power. ana the ratatss.fs
KAT q boar 70 ag2stE provision AZ tna
ssTE}s 2st tnss clause. al ether elsssSs.
IN ihe ass, mass ~ rrssa L gsSsssa.e 10 sar-
i.soisS VIA Ia* oiseE provisions os ths sssc-
tAon or act.
Anotae~ raae ~ Interpretation, < sAst an
As Esz&SF ec * construed fAAt every sawf
81 lAa Sek &sss every 3eSlsla IKE expression