The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-03-06
Populist Judge First Decides Ex-
emption Unconstitutional.
HON, L.n.PRATHER OF SPOKANE
Judge Reavis, the Populist Member
of the supreme Court, Concurreu
In the Decision-Attorney In the
Case q Prominent Eastern Wash
su~ton Fusionist-Full Text Of
the Superior Court Decision.

ton act OF the last iesiAatuKo uaSoiiSo-
tutional was the work OF Republican par
tisanship is proving veritable BOOM
erang to the Populists.
In the first place. the supreme court OF
this state has again and again shown itself
free from par.isanship. In the con-
test between Huen and Elliott for the
superior court judgeship OF Lewis. Pacific
and wahkakum counties. position
which holds for four years at a salary or
5000 a year, the supreme court decided
in favor Of the Populist. In the numer-
Gus legal and political tergiversations OF
Turkey" Fawcett the decisions or the
supreme court have shown conciuSvely
that IL Is not controlled by partisan con-
siderations. ~
Not only this. The first court decision
on this question. in which the exemption
law was declared unconstitutional. was
delivered by a Populist judge. Hon. l.. H.
Prather, OF the Spokane county superior
court. in a case entitled the State ex rel
Chamberlain VS.. j. w. Daniel. This decis-
ion was simply sustained by the supreme
Reavis. the Populist member OF the SUI
preme bench. concurred. Moreover. the
attorney who argued Ia behalf OF the I'M
consti,utionality of the law before both
the superior and the supreme court was
Judge Blake. prominent Eastern WASH
ingtou fusionIst.
Judge Prather's decision, which was de-
livered In the Spokane county superior
court last spring. was as follows:
This is an action TO prohibit ]. W.
Danniel, county assessor. from allow
Ing each person assessed an exemption OF
personal property 10 the value Of $500 and
improvements on real estate TO the value
OF $500. in assessing the property OF the
county.
PLAINTIFF claims that the act OF our legis-
lature passed at Its last session allowing
such exemption Is contrary to section
of article VII. OF our state constitution.
which is as follows:
The legislature shall provide by law
a uniform and equal rate OF assessment
and taxation OF all property in the state.
according to its value in money, ana shall
prescribe such regulations by general law
as shall secure a just valuation for taxa
alton. OF all property. so that every person
and corporation shall pay tax In proper
tion to the value of his, her or Its prop
erty; provided that the property OF the
United States and OF the state. counties,
school districts and other municipal cor
porations and such other property as the
legislature may By general laws provide.
shall be exempt from taxation
1T viii be observed that this section o.
our constitution fixes and preseribes a
basis OF taxation TO be all the property In
the state. and authorizes the legislature
n hS Law "a nd
rate of assessment and taxation, so that
every person ard corporation shall pay
tax In proportion 10 the value OF his. her
or It's property. The legislature could not
pass any Law in violation OF this express
and reiterated theory of assessments and
taxation unless allowed by the constItu-
ton. and II seams that no such authority
could exist unless we entertain the absurd
proposition that the constitution, after fix
ing In strong and absolute terms a certain
theory OF taxation and authorizing the
legislature TO pass laws carrying !; into es-
ecution. should. nevertheless. empower the
legislature 10 adopt any scheme OF taxa
ton which II might deem expedient. or.
in short. after placing limitations on the
legislature. Il should In fact be without
limit as 10 its powers. These apparent In
constituencies OF legislation have history
as old as legislation itself. and the rules
for their Interpretation have come TO us
necessity or on reason. + would be pre-
sumptuous to inquire. since they are abso-
lutte I'm their control
The first OF these rules Is that the gen
eral euacting clause OF statute must be
literally construed. so that the reason and
purvew OF the law may prevail.
''The second rule is that a proviso limit
ing the general scope OF the legislative In
tent must be strictly construed. so as to
trench thereupon no further than the rea-
son therefor shall appear from the provlso
expressed.
THE third rule which Is OF special ap-
plication In this case. IS that where gem
eral legislation is followed by proyiso
or exception from the operation OF the
general terms OF the act, specifying par
ticular objects. followed by a general au-
tAority 20 all other subjects. the gen.
erai authority Will be limited 10 subjects
Of tho same kind or character those
specified. In this case the general require
ment IL that ali the property IN the state
shall be taxed according 10 It's value IN
money: provided. that the property Of
the United States. and OF the state.
counties. school districts and other mu-
nsclpai corporations. and such other prop
erfy the legislature may by general
laws provide. shall he exempt from taxa
ton IN this instance IL will BE- seen that
the particular subjects that may be sx-
property OF the United States, ard OF the
state. counties. school districts and other
municipal corpora lions. all OF them being
Of a nature and kind comforting a benefit
on she general public. And IL seems wise
that they should be exempt from taxation.
because. being a public benefit. the public
can assist ia maintaining them as well
BY relieving them from taxation az by
taxing themselves 20 pay the taxes on
than The general subject follows those
% particular mention. which the conss.tti-
ton attempts 10 include in the proviso
exempsing property from The general In
tent o: the constitution. - and sucn other
property as the legislature may by gem
eral laws provide shall be exempt from
taxation According 20 the rules OF in
terrrsfaiior which / have mentioned
tins seemingly general authority cannot
mean thai the legislature shall have
power 20 exempt - hateyer property IL may
deem expsdlsnt from taxation. but neces~