The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-09-06
ar OTHER JUDGES.
liter Bond Case Goes to the
Supreme Court.
8 INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED.
Iichtenberg's Opinion-Civil and
rrsminai Cases In the Superior
Court-The BIotter.

u sns6s by the cry eouncil, wi b the pro-
Al me city viii enter into sipuiafica not
q t,sse bonds until he next meeting os the
-. court. The argument IN the case was
- Yesterday NOR ing a. $3.50 ana con-
8-f.rtsl Ii n. Thomas R. Shepard. city
80. began bis argument i'm media'ely after
=. saarysned. In meeting the point that the
-s.hss been sold for less than par, in viola
i he ordinance, NJ. Shepard held that
Il re- 10 ia TO Mr. Ha,sey was commission
d. rerosiasiRg the bonds, paid oHt of the city
T. and not 3 discount
4sast even Il it were discount" he said,
-. ansiuauce does not restrict the city council
9 sel.inx the bonds al less than par. The
= .; which the boids are 10 be sold is not
q an integrsl part OF the proposition, and,
rsso-e. the city council had not Invested
n Of the power OF legislative disposition of
y htis. Eaen authorized on sucn & rms as it
q, deem De :. Section IL of the ordnance,
e sne containing the resuietfon. entrusts to
e nsyor ard finance committee the power, In
T. the bonds shall have been authorized.
4ascut iursh reference OF he ma ter to the
g esuneil, % neeot'a and sell the bonds.
vriced however. tast none of tue said honds
4 ssu a az less t1sn par, nor the proceeds OF
u ssine be used Tor sny other purpose
2, those prescribed by this ordinance'
"a Is not q restriction upon the
eouac.i's own future power OF legislative
Hr;,u oyer and disposition o. the bonds, aud
&aufe such restriction IL could not bind the
kx.sii. II is merely safeguard thrown
psse ,hs 6isp 81 ion of the bonds by the
uyur ara finance committee. When the bonds
= actually sold to N ". Harris d Co, they
~ Rot sod by the mayor sad financial COM
We. Tut the city council took the matter out
kaeir bands and resumed its power OF dispo-
La q. toe bonds and so d them as IL deemed
: Tor the ciiys interests, inserting in the
sauce Ehica effeeted the sale q section re-.
ag al ordinances and paris OF ordinances
sfset herewith"
WING is the full text of Judge Lichteu.
cec.sion:
This IL ap application for a temporary in
bon. great G. al mas been sad that is so
csble In SINH a. case before an eminent
] will be psrdoned ii use the language OF
ninent inrist in that case: Case o. Wnelan
sl los Pa. 81.
ms ID a court of equity, court whose de-
nsof grace. not OF right, aud whose con-
ssce must tie moved before il will acT. II is
aFsr 70 pause just here before / enter upon
Esssioa Of the case. and consider intelli-
Ikzss Whist we are asked 10 do. This is the
krs necessary rom the fact that the case IN
t5ss large public as vel AS private iaterests,
sss excited considerable feeling in the To-
Is 10 b affected by IL. The oral arghments
saeh we have listened plainly reflect the
~ Of things ! lie. therefore, the more neces-
Ikrt bring to the Consideration of the case
eeelmness which should always mark ju-
~ setioa.'
We say that this language 10 appropriate aud
ne It word for word because i. f's the facts.
|ssso desire To say, before announcing our de-
fxsE that We have given the question more or
>eauaminston prior 10 its argument. We re-
|Fxssry much there are certain questions in-
1aFd which we designate as first. sec nd,
.tss snd fourth, as counsel for the plaintiff mas
fshsted them. namely: The legality of the
ttea, the ordinance embrace more than
1xnfiest and relating 10 the publication of
tzeFdinsnce. We regret taat I, ese three ques-
rs ssfe hot sut mitted In case of Metc If
ne City of Seattle: we regret il the more be-
pc We have official L 8owle ige sufficient for
phssste IN fact that the parties VINO are in
- ed-that at least one of the parties who
Interested in the present case-were also in
esed In the case of Meica against the City
SzEle. Whilst these facts are n ( before us
~ repeat that we have fficial knowledg e
slrrsnts us in making the as sertion: that
pa %, great deal of labor could have been
zd II these three qEestiaaS had been en-
kzd IN that case. especially 81 as il was not
1ely OF Seattle that inst ulci the action, but
(.s case shows, General Metcalt was the
kznf. II these three ques,ions-the facts
sxisted-had been Incorporated In that
Liaey would have been decided by the SUI.
p court, aud we and counsel would have
kspss q he time aud labor.
re should get Al the substance; this "a in
- OF equity. and the rule that governs US
substsnee. throwing aside oiher matters
Eat the subs ance. Th.re is no question Of
zs corraDt5oH on The part Of The city couaciI
Din tnis proceeding. Il is neither charged
aihefe a selati. Ia OF evidence showing that
ssss either fraud or corruption or wrong
fson the part of the eiIy council in this
asaehon; hence this is eliminated from this
"a iseiy And In the conclusion we have
sed we bear IN mind the stern fact that the
o. iais city is involved ana we believe. at
Rs our dusy 10 believe, that the plaintiffs
I" much inieres ed in tue credit OF this city
e remainder OF the Taxpayers; we assume
be .he fact.
sore passing upon the four questions which
nneeded are involved, 1t perhaps would be
10 ori fly refer 10 the salient facts, as il
become material hereafter. The two
u ftcts involyed-that is. those disputed,
he one relating 10 the commission or
20, and the other 10 the publication OF the
sa1see. The testimony develops the fact
~ Hslsey was the ageu; of y. w. Harris &
atse time OF the neeotiatiou aud placing
: ooadS We also find a. fact that the
Izstee as printed in The Times was correct
e The ordinance as drafted and passed by
ennon council That subs, Quent 10 its
esiion Ia the Tines the original ordinance
Asdvsftently lost That the clerk entered
= IFoper record the ordinance copying
Ne pRhiicat on IN the Times. aud that sub
<aty the theu city attorney. finding that the
nsd been lost, in pursuance OF what he
@aesed hrs duty, endeavcred, and SIS be then
Fas replaced in the archives of the city an
sopy OF the original. bat through some
seaitsentionai, in the substituted copy he
ole or two words Thst the city clerk,
'ae substituted ordinance was p.sced in
~eas compared IL vita the ordinance as
ncordsd it and discovered the differ
i 4ae words qualified voting and SHALL
Eaevng that the substituted ordinance
correct copy OF the original inserted ia
wits the int riineati rs as they now ap.
II 'aese Two lscts SIS we now reeoiiect, are
u N-~s s-4St are alSsUf eu. ne Will lass
egal questions that are involved and
+ re'sr b. them.
sass Eesson assigned why tire temporary
saonld issue IS that the election
sss ne ordnance was al special cleo
eAe TIE charter OF the city requires il 10
- seherAl election. We 60 not sustain
y as ground that the constitution pro-
va ashan be at a special election, and
Il repeal thai portion of the charter
II "a eouaseL Aud tha second PROPOSE
tse otdinsu c embraces N re than
- matter, namely: Wster-works and
"es-e of the opinion that it en-
enc subject. namely. The issue of
- sof the further reasons that have
II the argument OF COUNSEL for de-
49,. 'sis proposition. The third relates
o.A u on in the TfBses. that il was not the
III p-ssed Oar fading o. fac Is on that sub
- OF mat. We. therefore bold against
- en these three propositions That
Y sas fourth. IL is, ia oar Judgment. the
~ 80 sue namely: That the bonds have
-. = less than par. A number of author
oVtn cited, and as we in mated last
M save had no reason 20 change our
a. lnese eases cited as well as III this
"ser 10 issue t5s bonds. The author
Z aAe The sale and issue them 10 BY