The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-09
THE COURTS REPLY.
Judge Lichtenberg's Opinion
In the HarbOr Line Case.
He ANSWERS HIS CRITICS.
FIRST Day OF Fall Term OF Court-The
Choice OF . School site-The Court
Decides Mcneil Sane.

Judge Echtenberg yesterday in the case
of the Seattle, Lake Shore d Eastern Rail-
ray Company VS.. the Board of Harbor
Line Commissioners. granted in, response
writ of TO q mandamus from the supreme
court, the defendants motion TO quash the
wit of prohibition previously issued
against them. The railway company,
through its attorneys, excepted TO the
courts ruling, and the exceptions we're al
lpsed.
In giving his opinion Judge Lichtenberg
rrlied to the criticisms BY Ex-Governor
ssnple and Colonel Prosser, in newspaper
nerviews. of his delay in carrying out
as mandate OF the supreme court. He
sid:
Daring the vacation my attention, through
rexsnxper interviews. being called 10 this case.
Tsvsi:ed the serving Of the writ Of mandsmus
-,s.r,ed 20 in such interviews, 10 not having
beea served, and this being the first day of court
sot in vacation hand down my decision. In
do.,r so deem IL proper to make brief state
r,s,t. contrary 10 my usual course, in
coraeetjon with official acts. At the
argument four cases we're submitted. but In de-
rs1ing ] only passed upon three, stating AZ the
sme that. as the Railroad avenue question
might arise In this case, and as the same ques-
ton was before me In another case. refrained
from then deciding. Subsequently Ex-Governor
s<mple appeared in court, calling my attention
70 the fact that judgment had not been entered
IL TIE other two cases, whereupon | innedi-
stsly ordered judgment to be entered. Neither
AZ that time nor up 10 the present moment has
ssfher he or envone in behalf Of the defendant
called mr. attention to the fact thai this case re-
usjned undecided. Had he done 80, especially
snc< the decision Of the supreme court in the
Yesler case. formal ruling would immediately
hare teen rendered, becsu Sc the decision OF the
supreme court in the Yesler case decides this.
In the press OF business / had entirely for
rptssu that this case remained undecided. The
frst intinstion was from reading the daily
pxper containing statement that ex-Gov-
err1r sempie had applied to the supreme court
for 4 wit Of man6amEs. few weeks there
sster vsx another statement by another member
Of The commission, stating that refused 10
sets and hat they desired the supreme court
atonks ihs case from my Jurisdiction 1t may
be unsecsary 70 the gentlemen OF the
King county bar 10 state that have promptly
decided cssez, and II ! have inadvertently
negsecsed b pass upon q case, simply calling
nv attention 90 the same would have been
su1ciest The judges OF the superior court of
King comfy have somewhat more to do in the
performances OF their duties than seemingly the
MEMBER Of the hSroor line commission.
10 % true that the constitution requires the
Judges 10 decide cases submitted within ninety
dsys. but 10 complying with that duty some
common sense should he used and alta. Ks
should not be made without reasonable cause
The constitution also requires the judges TO
ssport 70 the supreme court judges, and the SUI
rrsme eoGrt judges 70 report 70 the legislature
detects in the laws This constitutional pro-
vision has not been complied with, yet no one
Increasing common sense under the eircun.
stances has found fault.
Within q few days after the issuing OF the writ
md during the various stages while before me;
After decision rendered: while before the
supreme court and subsequent thereto. for some
reason the defendants have seen DIT to have inter-
views reported In the newspapers relating 10 nv
action in connection with the cases. OF what
the motives were for such interviews know
nothing and care less. simple request calling
attention TO the fact that this case had not been
dscioed. would have met with an immediate
response, avoiding an application for a writ OF
nsndamus. Generally such a request would
have been made before applying for the writ
cnzsesy, II not professional ethics, would have
a3gHted . request, IL only formally, for q de-
esim from Judge hard pressed for time. am
piased 70 say that In the history OF this court q
tsrbt II in any COURT no such action a. that in
tais ease has ever been taken by Q gentleman of
De bar.