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

'''iSO Cot'IcSj VIZ. Inc lcSlSlatlNc, cX-
ecutivc and judicial.
And remembering that there was
not the most harmony, politically, be-
tween these combined powers, esteemed
1t wise and opportunc time to prove
that the will of the people, as ex-
pressed for more than twenty-five
years, is not law after all.
Accordingly two cases were made
and presented to the Superior Court
; OF this State within few weeks after
the approval of the law of 1897, for
the purpose of having the law exempt
ing private property from taxation de-
|; clared unconstitutional. One case
was that OF State ex rel. Chamberlain
, VS.. Daniel, in the Superior Court of
| Spokane county, before l.. II. Prather,
Judge, in which he held the law un-
/ constitutional, and was affirmed by
the Supreme Court to which the case
was appealed, by decision dated May
Is, 1897, reported in III Wash. Ill.
The other case was that of Buchan.
an vs.. Bauer, in the Superior Court of
Adams county, before c. III. Neal,
judge, in which he held the law valid,
but was reversed by the Supreme
Court, to which the case was appealed,
by decision dated May %, 1897, also
reported in IL Wash. GSS. This last
case, however, which was the first one
filed in the Supreme Court, is not
much mentioned by prejudiced Re-
publicans, presumably for the reason
that the history of the cases shows
that there is one distinguished men,
Der OF the Superior bench of the two
to whom this question was presented,
who held this law to be good.
| In considering the decision of the
Supreme Court on this subject the
reader should bear in mind that the
Court in passing upon the constitu-
tionality of an act Of the Legislature,
and the well settled rule in this re-
gard is as follows, by Chief Justice
Marshall, in Fletcher VS.. Peck, 6
Cranch. ST:
The question whether Il law be void
for its rcpugnancy to the constitution,
is at all times question of much deli
cacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to
be decided in the affirmative in a
doubtful case. The Court when i'm
PEELED by duty to render such a judg-
ment would be unworthy of its sta
ton, could it be unmindful of the SOL
emn obligations which that station
imposes. But it is not on slight i'm
plication and vague conjecture that
the Legislature is to be pronounced
to have transcribed its powers, and
its acts to be considered void. The
opposition between the constitution
and the law should be such that the
judge feels clear and strong convic-
ton OF their incompatibility with each
other.
And again, as was said by the Su-
preme Court of this State in State ex
rel. School District VS.. Grimes, Z Wash.
PA:
Such questions are always ap-
preached with great deal of caution,
and the uniform rule is that, where
doubt exists as to the constitutionality
of an act of the Legislature, the act is
sustained.
1t may be noticed that the very es-
sence of the decision related to words
OF the constitution, which after emu
merating property of different munich
pal corporations, is as follows:
And other municipal corporations,
and such other property as the Legis-
lature may by general laws provide,
shall be exempt from taxation.
Now In this case of State VS.. Daniel,
II Wash, at page 1l5, the Court in
speaking on the subject of construc-
ton and referring to what particu-
iar provision, clause or word means,
adopts the rule laid down by Mr.. Suth-
land, as follows:
The general intent should be kept
in view in determining the scope and
meaning of any part. This survey
and comparison are necessary to ascer-
tain the purpose of the act and to
make all the parts harmonious. They
are to be brought up in accord, if
practicable, and thus if possible give
sensible and ineligible effect to each
in furtherance of the general design.
And again the Court says at page
l16, after having referred to other not
inconsistent rules of construction, rs
follows:
These canons of Interpretation are,
however, at the most aids to cOnstruc-
ton, and after all it becomes the duty
OF the Court to determine, if possible,
what the real intention of the law
makers was.
If constitution is intended for
the benefit of the people and must re-
ceive liberal construction" as the
Court, in this same case at page 116
says is the rule, how shall you answer
the question when after cnumerating
practically every municipal corpora
ton known to the law, they say:
And other municipal corporations
and such other property as the Legis-
lature may by general laws provide,
shall he EXEMPT from taxation.