, 1892-04-19
.SEATTLE'S CHARTER
The Supreme Courts Opinion in
an Important Case.
THE Contest OF VI r. WiesemthaI for
Seat in the House of Delegates.
The Amendments are Declared
valid,
(Concluded from MondavO

Valid.
Concluded from Monday.)
Recurring to Ordinance 1874 we find II
prescribing in this manner:
Section 8. Said several proposed
amendments specified and numbered in
section OF this ordinance shall be voted
upon by the qualified voters of said CITY.
at said general election mentioned in said
section for the purpose Of ratification or
rejection by majority of all lawful voters
voting thereon at said election, of each of
said amendments, in the manner following,
tOWit: Every voter electing to vote IN
favor of the ratification of said proposed
amendment in said section 2, numbered I.
shall vote a ballot containing the words
for amendment No. to the city charter y
and the contrary; and so on clear through
the whole number of amendments. The
relator claims that the effect of breaking
up the original seventeen propositions into
thirty y-seven had the effect to confuse the
voter and deprive him Of fair chance to
express his wishes; but here again we can
not agree with him. We do not doubt that
there was confusion and inability to decide
Which way to vote upon the amendments,
but it grew out of the necessities Of the
case. through there being SO many subjects
to be voted upon rather than through the
method of presenting them.
Indeed it is difficult to see how SO MANY
E1lI6I6lG pIO OpOS4ulOIlS COuluH nave D66n SUBJ
mltted In any other way than the one ad-
opted, which has the additional merit Of
having closely followed the general election
statutes, (and especially general statute
S 518,) and the last clause of section /, arti-
Gle 20 of the charter. The amendments to
sections 2 and g. articles 4, were indispen-
sible to each other, and might properlv
have been submitted together as one pro-
position, but each having received a ma
lorlty OF the vote, their separate submission
in strict accordance with the law is no
ground for defeating either or both.
Lastly there were ,294 ballots cast. at the
election in question. OF these ,461 were
cast in favor and ], ,107 against amendment
No. Z, and 1907 We're cast in favor and 693
against amendment No. s. Thus {, 5,726 per
sons failed to vote upon No. Z, and s, 1874
failed to vote upon No. 8. Nos 7 and 8
were the amendments to sections q and 8
of article IN, the adoption of which as de
clared deprived the relator of his office.
He claims that inasmuch as the language
of the charter, section 1, article Xxx, IS:
If at said election majority of the lawful
voters voting thereat shall by their votes
ratify any amendment SO submitted, the
same shall become a part of the city char
ter, these amendments were not adopted.
since not less than ., ,148 was "a majority Of
the lawful voters voting thereat.''
Section Ii, article X of the constitution
be amended hv nronosaIs tbaraf, s17,,,l
tea hv The legisIative anfhoritv IL . citv
at general election, and ratified by ma
jority Of the qualified electors voting there
on
The position of the relator il That tbis
constitutional nrovision is Iinoitation
unon the powers of fhe 1nunicinaiitw i11
amending fl charter. tbat tha fra !, Sgs II
the constitution intended IL s1rro11rd frao
holders charters of cities of the frst-class
safeguards this provision was riacod IL tbo
Constitution as a limitation mon the Iow-
er of TIE city. III relation to fhe amend
1nant ~ its charter E5e r,aintaiY,s +Lat Il
was NOT intended To nrohihit the naoolo
CONSTITUTING the nunicipaIitv from rea11ir. sg1le
inc and placing upon themselves fnrtbar
iimitatio6s and resfrictions ~ III ,aItol
IF amendments. Tberefore Whi1a tba llaf1ySr. 80
stitIltion adonts liberal 3nathnd If No
cnrina amendments. Il is enfireIT w rifbin I'm
the nowar Of fine nitv iteaIf hu &c
ORIGINAL charter. to adont 4 strict meth
cd. such as Is SUPPOSED III be IN
uolved ~ +be word Gsthnrnof ., T1,st l,a1,
far this pronosifion could he carried viii.
ol1t croseino over the Jina 1z,bera o,9a,9j
nents would become practicablv imnossi-
hIe at once occnrs for refiection We have
already seen how. before 4 nronnsitiop i
submitted. fl must mass bv three-fiFtbs
vote Of the council. he pnblisbed mass
again by three-ffths face the h-In mayors PoSs OBJ
iecfions, be nnblished again ~ and nd tban oS, bo
Tota9 Io Fl an eectiaG ara ct Cfl
of the voters treat II With Indifference. and
looking mon this As. 4 precedent # viii ha
safe "a saw that the freebolders1 chartar of
Seattle bids fair to take rank AMONG The
famed oriental laws that never could be
changed Rl1twe differ with the relatoT IN
fhis matter. y
The trainers. .of the constitution went ont
.of the usual wav Of making sncb instrTs
.ments to insert 4. nrovision therein IooL-
inc ia the nossible Solution nf a nernieyino
modern Droflem-the governn5ei7t If Iaroe3
cities RI Granted II eeftain cities the rioRf
II Govern themselves. subject onIy Ii gen.
eTa1 laws nf HE state T,e orc 1t tras nS5aGa
in the shane of mower to enact a charter
law and to amend II afterward Inst how
far This GRANT was indenendant of IsoisIa.
tior We are nh called mon ~ sav. h71t n
nav IL safaIv said tbaf yvheravar III }bie
grant III is declared that a, Thing NAV he
Done in. a certain way, when II. comes 10 he
done fine doing # ia That wav will he sniff
Gent.
@Whereyer the language contains a grant
of mower it was intended AZ 4 mandate.
wherever fine LANGUAGE gives a direction al
III tnn manner Of exe5rcisi17or a l,oyuor II
was intended that the 1,owe7 9bo11fd he ayS
ercised in the manner directed and n n
otIer 1,3onInr,5
Varnev vs T11stice w Ran fKv
457 49, e
tWhen the constitution defines the cir
n177,,sta1lces under which a rioht NAV ha
aVereised oT = nenaitv irnnoseS H. snaciS
fication x an implied prahibition against
laoisIativa interfara11ca ~ add III the coYs
difion Or Ia extend the nenalfv To ofhar
cases i,
Coo;ev Const him. y. 78. 5tb I'd.
Tba GoN1er IL amend Il in this instance
AZ imnnrfant AZ tbe mower IA enact. The