The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-07
THE MAYOR is RIGHT.
Judge Hunes viii Not Issue
Writ Of Mandamus.
SCRIP REDEMPTION BONDS.
1 p,ssasesss Made Between Forms Of
..x.ess-suft for Commission
sew Cases Filed

.x.rus rrocsedings In the suit of
a.. - u.xnr white for an order Of the
-. = ,nvgrel hin - sign bonds Tor the re-
coAI. 'ss = .srees rrsds scrip were resumed be-
<-s-. lsrm~s i ne superior court yester-
Day ..A.af ~ TIA MAYOR en,-
~. 49, -. !. .sousd not be compelled to sign
800 -, -, Der rers contrary 70 the charter
49,. - ssfIsssica, which limited the indebi-
80 - = - essy 70 II per eent Of fncebsed-
- erre By Submission to & vote OF tns
peopae .-,...x sn.. 10 tsa ss.u. AZ t.ess
- freetsnx xe Indebtedness his client
= k~sfaess il court, bat he denied that
a.. casa Twas but new form Of sn
- s.x.se4ssu ess But his chief contention
-. -. me mayer could not come into court
,-s~< M sny suea plea for not signing the
- avs not the place Of the mayor 20 act
= !. eourt OF appeal lie has no ciscre-
-. n the msfter, but If the council
.,r< IN ordnance II is bis place ministerial
<xeer q psrforz any duty % placed upon him
e cited instances in support OF bis argument
q. admitted that the mayor might be called
rrou 70 sirn documents TO which be had grave
essefsse1s. extending even 70 the validity OF the
enhance under which t1ey were issued; but
~ srssstee that 70 admit his right 70 do 80 was
= ornsxr power upon him superior % that OF
a. legislative branch of the city goveramens
.sr<r eentsmpIste1 by the charter. These
fsnas rssht be worthless. buf il was not the
,a.ps q lhe mayor 70 intsrpose his personal OBJ
s.rr<aas between an ordinance lawfully passed
snd IN operation III he could then the city
esurcfl nnst 60 90 him before il passed AZ ordi-
,snre zad ask him /. be approved IL. what his
v;exs we-s "a 70 its constitutso1sify. and so on.
Hs hsc tie right 10 rsfuEs 10 siga the ordinance,
49, 81
yt.nL he was then bound by its provisions the
sss,< q sry other person 70 whom il applied
He west ever the nos familiar arguments that
sbe Dgnas created no new indebtedness, that the
eisy rsusd not BE liable until the end OF FIVE
x.s-s sas thea oniv by Its failure 20 do its dEtF.
md Il i did rot do is duty s. incurred 10 far
tSer lsshastg ~ these bonds than II would il
tbey rsre ncslmued, as the holders OF scrip could
sscorsr from he city by suit
The oszrs ssksd II the city could issue bonds
fers dsss a So not owe.
counsel ryaisd that be believed il could under
recent assson Of the supreme court that the
council scuE exercise its discretion IN p-ovid-
far psyneas fcr delta for corporate purposes.
They coud not create 8 new indebtedness but
they might proviae . new form of dealing with
It.
Mr. Wiley IN reply referred 70 the old charter
under vhicA the grading was done. He con-
tezdsd that IL Was never the fntsntion that the
ctr should be Liable for these sDcai improve
msnfx, although the council acted agent be-
fwssn TIE property-owner and the contractor.
Ef Teae authorities 70 show that the contractor
q other proper party can bring suit against the
beasftea property owners, and therefore the
"Trip holders had their recourse by suit against
6slfaQuents
Es denied thst the mayor was setting himself
Ha knowing bettsr than anybody else what
~ lawful: he stood IN the position Of re-
Hnkible officer Of the people eonscientiously
nesxyoring TO do his duty and refusing to sign
Idocument which would pledge the city TO pay
large sum of money for which be did not be-
isvs the city TO be Liable. He declared that
ny eitisen bad the right 20 refuse 10 obey q law
TaicA he believed TO be unconstitutional or in
rslid. aud let court pass upon IL The mayor
80 done no more He believed the city did not
i've the money and be refused 10 sign written
admission that the city did owe il, or, If il did
bot. xoald pay II anyway. He argued thai il
vss esariy the purpose to change the position
ef the city towards this liability. Why do they
some In and offer 70 sacrifice 2per cent INTEREST,"
Solely because they want to herald 10 20 the
sn'id that tbe city hiss assumed this liability:
b strengthen the value of the sviee7ces Of in
new represented by the warrants bot
only against the property benefited.
1htf desired 70 80 lar pledge the city 70 pay
rzzs that il would be bound IN honor, II not by
IN e take mp these bonds He declared that
ses ne city did not owe this money but IL the
raymsigns these bonds aud they are issued
lrssfessi IL IL an Indebtedness which the city
Ss1ld be bound 70 pay.
s1egs Humes said II these bonds mstured the
CT would be bound to pay H. Whatever is due
ssd unpaid by property-owners the city agrees
70 pay IL Whatever 10 due nov the city agrees
b pay II at the end Of Eve years Whatever the
1iy nay collect meantime VIII be so much 20
- advantage, but IL 10 the amount due now
Bat the CITY assumes Admitting the tacts in
'as csse this would De ths result II the court
'orapeiled the MAYER 10 sign these bonds Il
ronld be compelling the mayor 10 do that
rhieh the constitution has prohibited, the one
Ind enc half Limit having been passed. He de-
lied the application for n nSnaanux
Mr.. GesEil gave notice OF appeal