No Money, No Jury: Tacoma's Judge Stops Court to Prove a Point

Whatever may be the motive of Judge Stallcup in identifying himself with what may be called "outré" proceedings, he is entitled to a hearing. His suit against the city of Tacoma to enjoin payment of the interest on its water bonds was not such a method of reaching his object as could be commended on the part of a judge. His object might be a meritorious one and his course as lawful as taking advantage of the statute of limitations, but it was one that does not seem to be in keeping with the judicial ermine.

His latest act is even more sensational, and his judgment is questioned by his colleagues on the bench, but he has uttered some truths which are forcing themselves into prominence. The judge has vacated the order empanelling a jury, on the ground that the county has no money to pay jurors. The county is in debt to the constitutional limit and he considers that the people should run the government within the limit "or else we are incompetent to mete out self-government."

It cannot be denied that any indebtedness beyond the constitutional limit could not be collected; and it is equally true that if laws may be disregarded there is no assurance of stable government. But these general theories may be laid aside for the time. It is more to the purpose to discuss what Judge Stallcup points out as the two principal defective features in our system. "The first," he says, "is this: The sale on account of delinquent taxes should [take place each] year, so that we could have money on hand to run our government for such year, instead of taking place two years after taxes become delinquent. Another serious drawback is that no one is willing to buy tax certificates, so that our local government is without money to run it, until the money is paid in by the taxpayer himself. The second defect is that there is never any distinct fund for any specified purpose."