The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-09-17

sr TIE beach tGsuaz1as With L. TE@
agssEsznr as srgasr involved Annually e.
tfsese nsatsers - erss-raoas. II rams Ep
insa tbs usfsIse-s4 get very little attan-
tlaz - paid 20 ss@sa-
K - rst tes3 mach - say tha. EAs
neglect a rtis branch sc tsae eity's szsss-
nexs has eost i IL tfse pest hesw@en
tn.-ey ART fDrry thousand do1lzrs. Tn
lssxs 80 Tsscsn. ard Spokane cznn1t be-
seSg thar ssssssa earh. IL .oe t-sA-
sss -ks onfg wsg by which ttsoss
Gates ear sscare that issa IL 20 rsg,sids-
ate tbe warranfz Matters ara very
rnuch improved cow. bEs Il .x only BE-
oause Ct the increased care. There
wouss zson De losa again Il thsy were
germiss@9 60 srifs-
Although the decision rendered 1y
JUICE seves has ses ~ rest CT. srnpo-t-
ar. point in relation 10 the liability ~
cities on street grade warrants. tse
whole question il far from being settled
Indeed. u seruss probable that the oosrt
will have 90 fail hack ene& Esere sEson
re stAnt X took with tire community
property law. WHEN il declared taas
''esgfss have been established and have
grown up under these decisions which
:. .rcssia - wrong 10 nsw disturb. even
IL the court should conclude THAI the
rste as originally announced Was
faulty"
The supreme court had laid Gown the
doctrine sh9. IL q street grade warrant
zere paysb ont OF Specials improve
tgsens fand. Fhe city was not liable tn
der any circumstances. even though il
had been guilty of neglect in creating
the fund or Of bringing an action 10
enforce the assessment within the stat
ugosy time In this II wen; beyond =
somewhat generally accepted idsa that
tic city vas not Liable unless neglect
10 provide funds could be shown. The
one error at the bottom Of the matter
was IL ever recognizing any statute Of
limitation Ia connection with a tax
or municipal levy which is an open
and notorious matter of record.
The next mistake was In ever allowing
a wafran, signed BY the mayor and
sealed with the seal Of the city 70 go
forth 10 innocent purchasers until the
validity 81 the warrant was assured or
the city generally could make il good.
1t is true that warrants are only pay
able out Of special fund; bat 50 are
national silver certificates. but nobody
ever reads them or questions the good
faith behind them.
II liz claimed that the negligence Of an
volve the payers. Every day the
taxpayer. who has selected the officer
as his agent. is trusting TO him. and
cannot escape the consequences of his
acts or Omissions. When a sidewalk
is neglected and broken and an acct
dent happens IL Ii the Taxpayer, ana
not The superintendent of streets. who
is sued and held liable.
II IT were not for the statute CT lini-
tarions the whole problem would be
solved II the city failed 10 create a
fund or prosecute a suit. the warrant
holder could compel 1t by an appeal t.
the courts. AS IL Is now, il the city has
failed and the statute has begun 10
run. the warrant-hoider must bear the
loss aud the benefited property escapes.
II may seem harsh. bat that is the Law
Of this state Had Il been declared
earlier. warrant toiders might have
been put On their guard; but as 1, is.
the city IL not liable. and II IS too late
In mast cases for the warTant-holders
10 take action.