Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1898-04-29

Deen accustomed 10 having some
amount of private property exempt
from taxation, which amount was
changed from time to time as neccs-
sity dictated. There is no question in
this case but that the law provided by
the Legislature is n general law. 1t
is conceded that that requirement of
the constitution is complied with.
At page 12l the Court finally came
to this conclusion, rs it is expressed,
viz
That the case of the expression
"other property" in the proviso was as
matter OF caution, on the supposi-
tion that the special enumeration
mentioned might not have embraced
all public property, and that the
changing conditions of society and of
business, and changes of law, might
create public property not then in cx-
istencc.
(Which in all candor, it is submit
ted, is conjectural.) After which the
Court then comedies that it is not un-
reasonable that the constitution max.
ers also by these words, "other prop.
erty," had in mind property of a quasi
public nature, such as public libraries,
charitable institutions, etc, and i'm
mediately thereafter, strange to say;
make this plain, open. frank admis-
sion, to.wit:
"Under this head the trainers of the
constitution might also have reason
ably had in contemplation household
furniture to q limited amount for the
benefit of very poor people, and which
it was necessary for them to possess to
prevent them from becoming public
burdens; and in this sense it is class
of property in which the public have
an interest, although to meet the re-
quirements of the constitution as to
uniformity of taxation the exemption
must apply to all and must specify the
particular property exempted, and the
same rule might apply to tools of
trade, etc"
A complete self-reversal in the same
decision. A plain declaration that
the clause in question in the constitu-
tion may mean property of purely
private character. That is all ever
contended for. Yes, but it is an
swered, that only such in character
and amount as will enable one from
becoming n public burden. To say
the least, queer, shrewd proposition.
But let us see what it means. A
strong laboring man with an oppor-
tunity would take n double-bitted Ak
and by his work keep his family
clothed and sheltered and in food.
That is all the tools he needs to keep
his family from becoming a public
burden, and if one ak is exempted from
taxation it is within the constitution,
but if the Legislature exempts other
tools of trade the court will not sus-
tain it, for the reason that since they
are not needed to keep the family out
of the poorhouse the constitution has
been assaulted. And again, if a man
and his wife have $50 to 500 OF pri-
vate personal property doubtless they
can escape the poor farm for season
and therefore the Legislature may ex-
empt so much, but if the amount is
fixed at 5000, since so much is not
needed to keep them from becoming
public burdens, the constitution has
been ruthlessly attacked and the law
is void.
The question which arises is this,
where shall the limit be fixed as an
amount which is necessary, with a
people in this Western country where
there is disposition to enterprise and
business and where fortunes quickly
come and go, which in reason shall
determine whether family is likely
to become a public burden or not?
And what power shall fix that amount
or designate the property taxation, the
Legislature or the courts?
In all candor and frankness and
fairness it is submitted that this is,
pure and simple, a question of policy
resting entirely with the people, to be
spoken from time to time through
their chosen representatives in the
Legislature, for it should be remem-
bered that the Supreme Court in this
very decision under consideration, at
page ia, II Wash., has we'll said:
alt may be conceded that the policy
or impolicy of the law is a matter
which the courts will not consider,
but that that is consideration resting
entirely within the discretion of the
Legislature"
1t is a question of policy to be de-
termined by the Legislature Just as
much so rs the matter of the amount
and the kind of property which should
be exempt from execution and attach
ment. Thus, Independent of the leg
islative history upon this subject, in
Guiding that of the four Republican
Legislatures Immediately following
the constitution, the very arguments
OF the court above referred to, under
the rule of liberal construction of the
constitution, it seems would have JUS
titled the Legislature of 1897 in think
ing that its provision on this subject
WAS not in conflict with the cOnstitu