The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-03-30
My bSk FOR 4 REHEAR|NG
Personal PROPERTY OWNERS TRi
TO ESCAPE PAYMENT OF TAXES
fording BASIS for Resubmission
Of Exemption Question - Taxes
VIII he Deliaquent sa Friday.

II the King county personal property
owner has not squared accounts with
Treasurer Whittlesy by tomorrow night.
he ia likely to receive the sheriff. with his
little hammer. as an early morning caller
almost any day.
Thursday, March 81. will see the expi-
ration OF the limit set for the receipt
Of persona, taxes By the county treas
urer. After the doors of the office close
that night. ne has but one recourse in
dealing with delinaueuts and that is
through the sher.ff's office.
For weeks people have been casting
about. for some good reason thu. would
hoid water in court Why they should not
pay the unusual impost demanded OF them
The protest against the collection Of the
personal taxes has come largely from
those who own less than $500, the amount
OF the former exemption, but the large
property owners have taken up the howl.
Several well known attorneys have rak-
ed the constitution with a fine tooth
comb TO find something at variance with
the decision of the supreme court, knock
ing out all the exemptions. This search
or the organic law of the state has gone
on diligently. AT last, it is claimed,
section Of the constitution has been found
which cannot be regarded in harmony
with the decision of the supreme tr.b-
unal At least, so say some of the best
known lawyers In Seattle AT any late
the language cited by them is held as
ground for an appiicat ion for Tehearing
of the case. Then" said one of these
lawyers yesterday. ''the supreme court
Will have an opportunity TO consider new
light on the question and which may lead
them to very different conclusion from
their first.
AFTER all, 1t doesn't seem SO hard.
Supreme courts have not made 1t rule
not to change their opinions, after mat
tiers already passed upon have been re-
argued
Here is the section OF the state con-
siitntion which 1t Is claimed may be used
as basis for an application for re-
hearing Of the question before the supreme
court 1t is claimed that IL the court
follows well known principle and In
terprets one section of the constitution
In the light Of others quoted from that
instrument, 1t VIII not be averse, at
least TO hearing Wat some of the lead
ing lawyers of the state may have to say
in the premises:
Art XIX, Sec. 1.-The legislature shall
by statute protect by law from forced
sale certain portion of the homestead
and other property Of all heads of fam
lilies"
The reasoning. by which IL Is sought to
show that this section Of the state con-
sttution is abhorrent and at variance with
the rendered construction of the exemp-
lions section of the instrument, is in
teresting but simple. This is not intend
ed as an excerpt from a brief on the
subject, but is simply the expression of
We'll known attorney of Seattle, who
yesterday said In substance:
The trainers of the constitution sought.
as this section plainly shows, TO protect
the poor man. or the heads of families
dependent upon them, from suffering the
loss by forced sale of his immediate
chat.els and his homestead. Now the
collection OF a personal property tax can
be done only through the medium OF the
county sheriff, on the record made in the
treasurer's Office, in fact, on an execution
delivered out of the treasurers hands.
The sheriff following the writ SEXES the
goods and clattels and offers them under
the hammer. at forced sale. to satisfy
the claim OF the state.
This. 1t was intended by the makers of
the constitution. should be prevented by
statute enacted by the legislature. in case
OF seizure for the satisfaction of the
debt. Now. tell me what difference Is
there in the poor man who is deprived of
his holdings OF ehattels-his meagre lares
and renates-by the sheriff for debt to
a private individual, and who loses the
bed under him when the sheriff sells him
ont for delinquent taxes? The two sec
tons of the state constitution should be
placed side by side. Then II win appear
that the meaning OF the section referred
to on exemptions. made the basis of the
supreme court decision complained sof,
Is not repugnant To a reasonable exemp-
ton OF personal property from taxation,
fixed by statute enacted by the legis.a-
ture''
Il s entirely probable that II any at
tempt is made 10 again get the matter in
court. Ii VIII be done through the Sec
ton of the constitution quoted. This has
been brought 70 the attention of several
lawyers. who have regarded Ii as good
ground on which to base an appeal for a
rehearing. AS far as known. however. no
such attempt has been formulated.