Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1898-03-31

wv i''iA''+' Ait- tiiilflN ssi INV "I'tNtiN''
lately in the seattle Times. 1t shows in
manner that can not be contradictcd
/ that the passage ol The exemption law
was an almost unanimous act, and that
it couN have been defeated rs Ncpaa-
/ ican votes:
At present the Peoples Party in the
( state al Washington is receiving some uu
just criticism. in regard to a certain act
/ passed by tiIn last Legislature cXemptu1
from taxation personal property TO die
amount Of 500, and the Improvements
ON land to the amount Of $500. Ii YOU
will kindly permit me 10 make Il statement
through the columns OF your paper | will
try to give a brief history oi the act.
The bill originated in the senate and
was discussed by that body in all it's de-
tails. On the ifty-fourth day Of the SEES
sion, being only six days before the
adjournment, the bin passed by the follow
ing vote: Yeas %, nays s, absent or not
voting, |. The Republican members OF
the senate voting in favor OF the bill were !:
Deckebach, Frink, Hall, Harper, Lesh,
Meglcr, rusey, Warburton, Wedding and
Washburn, the latter being at that time
the distinguished editor OF the Post
lntelligcncer.
The senate, being composed OF thirty
four members, it was necessary for Il bill
to receive eighteen votes before it passed
that body, In the bill referred to the
/ PopuIists furnished fifteen votes in favor
Of its passage, the Republicans furnished
ten votes, and five Populists and thiee
/ Republicans voted against the bill. II
the ten Republicans who supported the
! bill had voted against it, it would not
( have passed.
1t is perhaps known to all that no law,
except appropriation bills, olail take effect
until ninety days after the adjournment
OF the legislature, unless in case 81 an
emergency. Had this bill passed without
the emergency clause the property OF the
state Wonld not have been assessed under
the new law. 1t would also have given
an opportunity to nave had the law tested
by the supreme court before it was nee
essary for the assessors to apply it.
But SO anxious were the Republican
senators to have The law take effect at
once that they all voted for the emcr-
gency clause, excepting Senator Dorr
The names and figures | have quoted
are taken from the Senate Journal, on
page 500. The bill as the vote will indi
measure, and one that the state was
greatly in need Of. The fact that the Re
publican party already had upon the
statute books Il law eXcmpting property
from taxation to the amount OF $500 and
the voice OF no court had ever been heard
against it, the Legislature rightly con
cluded that they were authorized to III
crease the amount Of exemption. After
leaving the senate the bill was placed
upon its final passage in the house March
o, two days before adjournment. 1t must
be admitted, however, that the populist
members of the legislature did not know
that the bill was unconstitutional, neither
did the Republican members OF Il former
legislature know that it was unconstitu-
tional for them to exempt $500 worth OF
property from taxation. | supported the
measure III the house and still believe it
Just one, yet | am slow to believe that
the supreme court erred in Judgment.
Tie fault is certainly with our state con-
stitution. The deficiency judgment bill
and other relief measures have likewise
been declared unconstitutional. In The
face OF these facts am inclined to think
that it will be necessary for the people OF
Washington to frame Il new constitution
before the Legislature will have authority
to afford such relief as the people de-
maud. \ constitutional convention i.
not an unusual thing in some OF the older
states, and | believe that our state has
outgroWn its present constitution. The
Peoples Party, in my opinion, will do
the right thing, il in their next state and
county platforms they declare for "a con
stitutonal convention.
am asking no one to pardon me for
supporting the exemption features in the
bill above mentioned. Could HE ques-
ton be submitted TO die people as to
whether OF not they desired an exemption
OF $500 on personal property and 500 on
land Improvements, it would carry in
this state, in my opinion, by an over
whelming majority.
In conclusion will simply ask, in
view OF all the facts disclosed by the
Senate Journal, is it honest to charge
the Populist party with committing a
serious blunder? J. Il. NELSON,
Representative Forty-sixth District