The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-10-19
JUDGERIVERS' COURT.
It's Validity Still Subject Of
Inquiry.
CONTINUED UNTIL MONDAY.
tars Did Nos Delegate Its
Authority 70 tho City.
CONTINUED UNTIL MONDAY

Authority - the City.
The case to test the validity OF the police
court was resumed yesterday before Judge
Humes in the superior court Al officer
was IN court with John Reilly. who is serv-
ing out sentences Of ten days in . conn
paratively comfortable way.
Justice Rivers. whose authority Is called
in question. was present, together with City
Attorney Lyon. John Wiley and few
more lawyers.
Mr.. Whey said he desired to submit to the
court that unless there is such . thing -
an Office de jure. there is no such thing as
an officer performing the functions of that
ohice de facto. He proceeded to read
from standard authorities to show
that quo warranto was not the right
process. as in order to take the first
step they must admit that the Office was
created, and that Judge Rivers was intrud-
ing himself into an Office legally created.
II they admitted the existence of the Office,
the prisoner is properly convicted.
He quoted the case In re All You. I'D
Pacific Report. to show precisely similar
condition, inasmuch sas the commitment
objected to was made by police justice of
the Oakland police court, created by the
charter. He quoted at length from the
constitution of California, of which the sec
ton In the Warrington constitution was an
exact copy. He then referred to section
1856 of the code to show how fully the pow
ers of cities to provide for Ne trial and pun
ishment of offenders we're filled by Judicial
machinery provided in the general Law
upon the jurisdiction Of justices of the
peace.
City Attorney Lyon said the point bad
not been met, which was whether writ of
habeas corpus could be attacked upon .
collateral issue. He desired to cite author
tiles to show that habeas corpus can
not be used as quo warranto
proceedings. He contended that this court
cannot decide the question whether q de
jure Office is held by q de fact0 officer. He re-
ferred to BARRIERS Supreme Court Reports,
volume 8. page l62. dealing with the valid
ity Of police justice in the city Of New
York. state OF facts precisely like those
in the present case The effect of the argu-
ment was to show that it was q mischiev-
Gus method to pursue and was trifling
with the intention of habeas corpus, which
Gliding question of this character upon
the writ was that it did not settle the law
upon the point
He made the further point that only the
people could call into question the validity
of court based upon legislation. the in
ference being that action must be instituted
by the state. Several authorities were re-
ferred to in order to show that private par
ties could not raise the question Of con-
stitutionality: and again insisted that
quo warranto was the only process. In
conclusion he maintained, as counsel for
the city, that the Law was constitutional,
and that Judge Rivers was legally
elected and had properly qualified. He
then reviewed the objections to trying such
question through writ OF habeas corpus,
as If that were once admitted any prisoner
could at any time harrass court and defer
punishment by raising questions under the
writ.
Mr.. Wiley said the argument reminded
him Of the prayer of the converted infidel:
"Oh my God, if there be God, have mercy
on my soul, If have . SOUL" He had
nothing to offer against the cases cited by
his learned friend but to his application of
them. He renewed his argument that in
no case where it had been commended that
the court itself didn't exist, did the pro-
ceedings take the quo warranto form. He
called. attention to page 807 of oath Pacific
Reporter. where q prisoner objected to
being committed by justice of the peace
where charter created police court and
gave it jurisdiction. In that case The writ
was discharged and the prisoner remanded
because the court declared the provisions
of the charter creating police court were
invalid. Such cases had been six times
before the supreme court Of California on
writ of habeas corpus.
"Without at this time deciding the ques-
ton will hear Mr.. Wiley on the main
question" said Judge Humes.
Argument was then made by Mr.. Wiley
upon the powers of the charter makers to
establish police court He quoted the
constitution to show that the right to Gre
ate courts was peculiarly the function of
the state legislature and could not be dele
gated. The chief points of this line of ar
gpment have already been very fully pub
lished.
Mr.. Wiley put considerable stress upon
the fact that the statute did not say that
municipal corporations should have the
power to create . police court, but that it
had already provided for the court of the
justices of the peace whose Jurisdiction
was clearly extended over offenses COM
mitted in the city, and the legisla-
ture at all times kept in view
that corporations must be gov
erned by the general laws. He quoted
the law delegating authority to cities to
provide for trial of offenders. but said that
must be in conformity with the general
laws. The charter had, without any refer
ence to the statute and without any color
of authority, created q court-s'a court is
hereby created" and this was an infringe
ment of the exclusive authority of the leg
islature. clearly prescribed by the constitu-
ton. which saws 1.-The jurisdiction of in
ferior courts must be defined by act of the
legislature.
Mr.. Wiley asked the attention of the
court to page II of oath Pacific Reporter
upon the subject of delegation of power,
and raised the contention that the iegisla-
ture in the act for the government of cities
of over 10000 had not even attempted to
delegate its authority.
It was nearly O'Clock when Mr.. Wiley's
argument was concluded. and the court
continued the hearing until 8 O'Clock Mon
day morning. The judge said he would
sit at night but the condition of his health
would not permit just now.
CAUSE OF RHEUMATISM.
blood and restoring the liver and Kidneys to
healthy action has been q subject of great ssudy.