The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-05-22

rrooseuting Attorney AcElroy y busy
uneiae for the argument before the
saese supresne court next Thursday In the
- which Involves the right OF tina state
:, - de lands held BY Individuals. CON-
.on.w q corporations under contract.
1apvt u,soaap worth Of property b In
se,ys1 n the case II ~ expected that the
susresss court win hand down IT. decision
u1th1o he next three weeks.
q m Prosecuting Attorney NcElroy
edvtred the assessor to asseas the tide
an1v around Seattle. The Washington
yuo works Company. Seattle Tide Land
cuneany. Elliott Bay Tide Land Com
paay. Indemnity Trust Company. Hail &
ruuIsep Furniture Company. Mcknight
CDnns Improvement Company. Frye
Dgshn Company. Leary- Collins Land Com
psny, Frank Hanford and others objected
- took the matter into the superior
sst
sh1y contend that tide lands purchased
~ the state are not subject to taxation
- general state. county and municipal
ns3osss until the purchase price has been
my paid. AS sustaining this contention
~ rely upon section 2. article Of the
16assitution OF this state. which, among
cher things. exempts the property OF the
ffats from taxation.
Ths state. through Prosecuting Attorney
1fE1zoy. demurred to the complaint before
shs superior court and was sustained
Tneh N appeal was taken to the supreme
ecprt and 1t 10 this appeal which Mr.. Nc
Elfoy - preparing to meet next Thurs
6ay. Mr. McElroy Will contend that Il ID
settled principle OF law that provisions
exempting property from taxation are to
b. strictly construed. No property Is to
- held exempt uD.ess II clearly falls with
IN the exempted class.
Tbs property In question, according to
Nf. MrEiroy. does not fall within the
sxsmp.cd class. The state constitution. he
eayss Intended TO exempt only that prop
srty which Is q part OF the public domain:
that Of which the state has possession, oc.
supation and use. Tide lands held under
contracts Of purchase and In the possess
sion. use and occupation Of private parties
ere 20 longer a part OF the public domain,
but have been separated from II and have
become part OF the taxable property in
Tie state.
Nj McRroy says that the appellants are
IN poseession and enjoyment OF the tide
lands. In equity they are the owners, pos
sessing . real and substantial interest,
semsthing that they can sell and dispose
Of ~ they sec NJ Of which the state can
moi deprive them.
section 2. article OF the state consti-
tuition makes all property in the state
subject 10 taxation and IL has been held
that the term property. as applied to lands,
ccmpfehends every species of title inchoate
or complete. 1t Is sufficient to embrace
those rights which are executory as well
a. those which are executed.
According 10 Mr. MeEsroy II would be
eafeasonable 10 hold that section 2. article
II tae constitution was intended to ex-
snpf rom taxation. lands held under con-
srsru Of purchase from the state by pri-
vaie individuals. possessed. used and en-
tayed by them. This would relieve the
pcssessors from their due contribution TO
~ support OF the government. which IL
bound 10 protect them In their persons
aad property. The legal title remains in
the state for the purpose of securing the
payment OF the unpaid purchase price. The
equitable title IL IN the purchasers and
The only interest OF the state is In the
nature of an equitable mortgage.
In regard 10 the contention OF the ap-
pesianss that II these lands are taxable
that only the interest or equity OF the
purchaser therein is subject to assessment.
NJ. AcEiroy thinks IL untenabie. VIII T..
Humphrey. John II. Hart and Walter Full
son are associated with Mr.. McEsroy in
the case.