Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1898-10-21
esaI Construction v. Common Sense

Legal Construction v. Common Sense.
II j. well in passing Judgment upon
legal construction" al fundamental
cr statutory law. to consider what un-
juuhtc,ily W., 4 conlmoH->cnsc con
~trUction ii ri ctod "r perverted pro
Visions "dpptcd 10y the convention
which FRAMED the one and the Lcgj>-
laturc which passed the other. 1t
iHight IT, well. AZ the same time. to
con>.!cr the probable construction the
voter placed upou iangUagr which has
only been perverted by the count OF
high resort after many years OF undl>-
putcd sanction OF what We cannot re-
irain from still regarding "a it. true
meaning. reference is here made to
the ciau,c regarding exemptions from
taxation. The languac" of the consti-
tuition. as il now stands j:
Srr. >, Article NIl.-The Legislature
tai e.. - - by law uniform and equal
;tr e.: &, -,-Smcnt and taxation on all
property III the State, according To its
V;,luc in iuoncv, and shall prescribe such
regulations by general law as shall Sc
cure a just valuation for taxation of all
property, So that every person and cor
poration shall pay tax in proportion TO
the value OF his, her or its property 3:
= t,.l, . -. al -.
from credits may be authorized: Pro-
. rfdd tNHhcr, That the property OF the
| nitcd States, and Of the state, counties.
school districts, and other municipal
corporations, and such other property as
the Legislature may by general laws
provide, shall be exempt from taxation.
The difference between the "legap
and Il common sense Interpretation Of
the intent of the above section, it will
be se0n, lies in the clause "and such
other property as the Legislature may,
by general laws, provide, shall be ex-
cmpt from taxation.' The voter is
not to blame ii he, in his innocence,
believed that an exemption to the
amount of 5000 or $500 in household
effects, OF creryJody, rich or poor, was
q general law, and he is not to be CEN
sured now, even after it has been gra-
ciously pointed out to him, if he cam
not see how an exemption that is of
little service to the rich man but of in
estimable value to himself may be de-
tlared special law simply because it is
boon based upon his own impecuni-
oslty, condition which does not make
it valuable to his rich neighbor. 1t is
still more difficult for him to draw a
distinction that would qualify the in
tent OF meaning from the use of COL
lective nouns for antecedents in stat
ing the proposition. "Such other
property" to the trainers of the con-
stltution, to the people on submission
of the document for ratification, and
in enactment of laws under it, was
NOi'"eiu Su w hhSaii JUST WildI IL says :.
any property reached by general en-
actment; any property owned by the
people generally, though Of personal
nature but still further generalised
by limit of the value to be deducted
from the tax levy. Its necessity con-
ceded, the primary object kept in view
while enacting valid tax-law is to
make it uniform in its application,
that its obligations and benefits may
fall, like the dews of heaven, with
equal precision upon the just and the
unjust. 1t is difficult to conceive of
any enactment which could be more
equal Cor generaD in its application
than one which declares that few
necessities Of life may be retained by
every head of a family, which may not
be sold under the hammer OF the tax
collector
But then the big-wigs have declared
otherwise and the people must bow to
their imperious mandate. They will,
however, rise up in their might at the
polls and make the law so plain that
he who runs may read.
------ - -