The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-28
ITS TASK FINISHED.
The Charter Revision Commit
tee Dissolved.
FINAL AMENDMENTS ADOPTED.
Bonds of Contractors With the City
Powers Of Park Board TO Be In
creased-Terms of Oficers.

The charter revision committee held its tnai
meeting last night and adjourned sine die, leaY-
ing forty amendments to go before the city
council. No new business was introduced, the
debates being entirely confined 20 ame1dments
already submitted. There are forty in all, and
az they have to be considered in both houses
some tine must elapse before final decision Is
reached.
The members present were Judge jacobs, Al
dermen Miller, Hall, Korn, Delegates hlttinger,
Shipley, Bagley, Jones' and Mr.. ". R. Andrews
Among the visitors were Park COmmlssIo ners
W. Z. Bailey and D. Jones ana MIC. ". Don
worth.
he first business OF the session vas consldera-
ton OF the amendment as to contractors bonds.
Mr.. Shipley proposed TO make the section 10
read that no contract shall be valid unless the
bond is given. He met objections by the aTgu-
ment that ii the provision were adopted the
bond would be prereQ uisite 20 entering upon
the contract and it was the business OF the con-
tractor to know what the law was and give
proper bonds.
Mr.. Andrews proposed TO modify ii so that the
contract would not be void, even in case OF fail
ure TO give bond, provided all the conditions OF
the contract were complied with
The amendment was accepted, ana consldera-
ton OF the article was resumed, the debate be-
ing mainly sustained by the lawyers and Mr.
Bagley. Several changes were made where the
stipulations emed TO be too restrictive, and
the article was finally adopted.
The power OF a contractor TO assign his con-
tract was the basis OF a very technical discus
sion, the necessity for providing Tor exceptional
cases creating apparent conflicts between the
rights of contractors aad the interests OF the
city and Of laboTers ana material men.
I'VE are getting into deep water" finally re-
marked Mr. Andrews, and it was resolved 70 re-
fer it to the judiciary committee, the chair ap-
pointing MI. ohipley to take the place OF Mr.. ".
Lair Hill, who is unable 10 attend further TO
the work.
The amendments 10 the article on the park
commission were taken up and Mr. Donworth.
at the request of the commissioners, addressed
the COMMITTEES. explaining that the effect OF one
amendment was 10 enable the city to issue
bonds to purchase land without requiring the
board TO spend one entire half for i'm
provements. The benefit OF the change
is that the commissioners could buy large
tract of land to cost $4,000 or 200 while land
is cheap without compelling the board TO raise
an equal sum Immediately for Improvements,
but leave the work OF identifying it 10 go on in
the course OF years. This amendment was
adopted.
Another amendment empowers the board to
buy land by making part cash payment and
giving a mortgage for the remainder; it also
extends power to exercise right of domain
hitherto confined TO the council.
Mr.. KOrn moved to reject it.
Mr. Andrews said he had felt prejudiced
against it, but he had ON consideration found
very valuable features 1t seemed like confer
ring great deal OF power on the board, but
there was not city in the union which had
such splendid opportunities for being made
beautiful He would have preferred to arrange
it in some other way especially as to right of
eminent domain.
Mr.. Donworth said this amendment would
only create capacity, it would need an act OF the
state legislature to confer the power by allowing
cities to acquire land for parks by right of emf
nent domain. He reminded them that no debt
could be incurred without vote OF the people.
Mr.. Korn said he would not vote for it, he did
not want to have any amendment that looked at
all suspicious; he was opposed to giving so
much power to the park commission.
Look at the library commission; II was
other independent body; it was no good 10 any
body except the few people who drew salaries
from it,
Mr. D. Jones addressed the committee, ex-
planning the difficulties the board had TO over
come he said when the city had grown to
100000 population and il was no longer able to
buy large tracts of land for parks, the
people would denounce the action of
this commission, which had insisted
upon keeping up the obstacles. The
board asked for no more power than was given
- similar commissions in every part OF the
United States.
Judge Jacobs thought that even if the power
to exercise the RIGHT of eminent domain were
CONFERRED upon cities it would not be good pub
lie policy 20 endoI the board with II, because
the council was the legislative body of the city
and held its purse strings. He had no doubt
that il the board thought IL desirable to take
condemnation proceedings the city council
would give necessary authority. He referred TO
the decision OF Judge Campbell that cities had
no right to condemn property even Tor street
purposes.
Mr. shipley objected TO putting the provision
in the charter.
Nj Bailey said the board only asked what the
experience OF other cities had shown il to be
necessary for park boards to possess. 1t was al
most impossible to acquire large pieces OF land
in or near cities except by condemnation pro-
ceedings. The prOperty-owners have always the
right 10 60 10 the courts if they were dis
satisfied. In Minneapolis the taxes on
the Improvement OF property around
the park rad paid the original cost and the in
terest on bonds and left 81 eco 900 over There was
no doubt that il was wise to acquire land as
soon IS possible.
Nj. D0nworth offered an amendment which
modified the provisions as to eminent domain
which seemed 10 meet the objections, but Judge
Jacobs said the c " m ght get itself into seri
-