The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-02-16

select particular individuals froFn class
er locality. and subject them 10 pecuAlr
rules. or impose upon them special ohiiga-
ticns Or burdens from which others in me
"At pages 49, IL IS salds
The doubt might also arise whether
4 regulation made for any one class OF cit
t2frs. entirely arbitrary in It's character
and restricting their rights. privileges or
legal capacities IN manner before ur-
known TO the law, could be sustained. not
wafnsfaHIing its generality. Distinctions
in these respects must rest upon some rea-
son upon which they can ne defended; Ike
the want OF capacity in infants and insane
persons; and Il the iegisia tQre should an
dertake to provide that persons following
some specified lawful trade or employ
rnent should noT have capacity 70 make
contracts. OF 70 receive conveyanees. or 10
build suci houses as others were allowed
10 erect. or IN any other way 10 make
such use of their property as was perTnlssi-
bic 10 others. il can scarcely De doubted
that yhe act would TRANSIENT the Cue
bounds OF legislative power, even though
no express constitutional provision could
be pointed out with which II would come IN
conflict To forbid 10 an Individual or a
class the right TO the acquisition or enjoy
msnt Of property in such manner "a should
he permitted TO the community n large.
particulars of primary Importance 10
their pursuit OF happiness ana
those who should claim right 10 do
SO ought TO be able 10 show a spselnc au-
others 10 show how and where the author
ity is negstivei.
:" Equality of rights. privileges and ca
pacitieS unGuestionabiy should be the aim
Of the law. and IL special privileges are
granted. or special burdens or restrictions
imposed IN any case, II must De presumed
that the Legislature designed 10 depart as
little as possible from this fundamental
maxim Of government.
THE state. il is 10 be presumed. has
no favors 10 hestow. and designs 10 infiict
n rights
cial privileges are always obnoxious. and
Determinations against persons or classes
are still more so.
las 10 class legislation. also Taco
ma VS.. krech. Is Wash. es6. where the
principle was held TO apply.
ITO undertake anything like n review Of
tioral questions would extend this opin-
ion beyond ali due bounds. Many of them
are cited in the briefs and these can be
resorted 10 by those desiring 20 do so.
The rules above quoted are sufficient TO
Indicate the general grounds and 10 es-
tabiish that an ac; limiting the rights of
a citizen TO contract with reference to his
property must tend to promote the pubic
good in some way, or IL Is an unwarranted
interference Herewith. Such laws must
be founded on legitimate reason Where
the reason fails tho right ceases. Can
such a basis be found here? The act
cannot operate as exemption law. Such
laws are sustained on the principle
that the state is interested in the reten-
ton By each citizen of enough property
10 enable him TO be self-supportng. that
he may be enabled To pursue his trade or
calling and In order that he may not be-
come a public charge. These matters are
left to the legislature, and TO say how lit
tie or how much may be exempted. Such
laws are literally construed. 1t clearly
cannot serve any such purpose for a
mortgagor may have a large amount OF
other property above his exemptions aside
from that mortgaged Why should
mortgage. who has exhausted the mort
gagged property. not he paid therefrom?
1t has been heretofore we'll settled pol
icy OF the law that a mans property In
excess of his exemptions should he sub
jeeted 10 the payment of his debts. 1t
could not be supported as an additional
exemption. for 1t would operate unequal
ly. One man might have only a small
amount of such property. another very
large amount. 1t is no answer to say that
the parties have contracted for certain Sc
curity. for that may be lost or impaired
without the mortgages fault. The mort
gagor has also contracted to pay the debt
in addition to giving up the security.
II does not serve the purposes of an
insolvency law in any way whereby man
Is enabled TO turn over all of his property
above his exemptions TO all of his cred
itors and start again freed from former
liabilities, for here he Is not ahsolved
from the payment OF his unsecured debts;
II the property he then owns is not suffi-
cient TO pay them payment may be en-
forced against his future acquired prop
erty On the other hand. he may have