The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-10

Elective officers being chosen by the peo-
pie could only be removed by the elective
body-the city council. which was sup
posed TO represent the people. Appointive
officers for whose conduct in Office the
mayor was responsible, could be removed
from Office by the mayor. No system
of municipal government could stand the
vexations and delays consequent upon an
assumption that in case of every attempted
removal of an official the citys business
must wait until proceedings had been
taken before a superior court, and perhaps
appeal to the supreme court. The mayor
had no right to pass upon the constitution
atty of any provision of the charter State
legislatures, councils and officials were
clothed with quasi-Judiciai powers which
were well understood.
The mayor remarked that the charter
said the mayor shall remove for cause, and
only the supreme court could decide as to
Its constitutlonality. He only wanted to
know whether the interest a stakeholder
had was such as was contemplated by the
charter.
Noon having arrived the hearing was
suspended until O'Clock.
Mr.. Blaine resumed his argument after
been doubt In Major Rinehart's mind as
to the legality of his act in placing insur-
ance in his company or he would not have
sought the corporation counsels advice.
Suppose Major Rinehart or Mr.. Hebron
should own 30 per cent of the stock OF
company which had million brick for
sale for the construction of the Lake
Union sewer tunnel. but he was merely a
stakeholder, would there be any difference
in the principle? The little 50 cent profit
on the insurance premium was only the
thin end Of the wedge. He proceeded to
quote from decisions in support of the
view that the stockholders and not the
corporation benefit by the profits which
lnure to it.
He asked if judge would not be incapac-
ltated from sitting in judgment on case
wherein he was a stakeholder. The inter-
est does not need to be direct, in the
present case, because the charter says it
shall not be direct or indirect, and that
Rinehart was indirectly interested there
could be no doubt. He quoted a case from
Vol. N of the American and English En-
cyclopedia of Law, which laid down the
principle that city clerk who was a share
holder in gas company having a con-
tract with the city was party interested
In the contract, and subject to the penal
ties. The three members might own 81
per cent. of the stock of company with
three trustees holding one share each, and
make a contract with the city to furnish
all the supplies required for a great sewer
system, and yet as stockholders, declare
they had no interest in the contract, but
only in the dividends.
Mr.. Donwoith followed, expressing his
dissent from the views of the opposing
counsel. lie thought it a pernicious prin-
ciple that no power but court could re-
move an appointive official; or that Off
Gals could evade the charter by having an
interest in contracts with the city and
shield themselves behind a stock company
The mayor said what had been called
judicial power is more akin to administra-
tive process or quasi-judicial power and
had been vested in mayors in all time.
Mr. Donworth said he had looked ut the
matter more from a common sense view
than legal view. If &. +. Adair,
stakeholder in the Gordon
Hardware Company, and Thomas
Drew, also a hardware dealer, but
trading IN his own name, were both elected
Adair's company might trade with the
city but Mr. Drew might not? He con-
tended that Mr.. Rinehart's interest in the
insurance premium was not a fraction of
500, but of the So GOO risk, and that if 8 fire
took place and the payment of the policy
was demanded Mr.. Rinehart would be in
terested in securing payment by the city
and interested as a stakeholder in defeat
ing the payment to the city if there was
any allegation of carelessness contributory
to the fire or of breach of the conditions
of the policy.
w. Lair Hill. on behalf Of Mr.. Riuehart.
quoted from So Michigan to demonstrate
his proposition that the power the mayor
was attempting 10 exercise and which the
governor Of Michigan had exercised by
right of constitutional provision was q
judicial power; and under the constitu-
ton of Washington no body could exer-
else 1t except court created by the legis-
lature. In this state. the body that pre-
sents articles of Impeachment never passes
upon them. He declared that removal
from office was punishment for official
crime. He went on 10 read authorities.
and concluded with an argument that the
attempt OF the charter to give the MAYOR
judicial powers did not deprive Major
Rinehart of his rights under the constltu-
ton.
The mayor asked what he thought of the
provision III the constitution that the city
should exercise all the powers of cities of
the same class
Mr.. Hill replied that the charters of
cities were as varied as the flowers OF the
field. sister city had attempted to i'm
prove streets by condemnation, but the
supreme court had decided il could not be
done. vet very many cities Of the same
class exercised that power-alwavs. how
ever, by express provision. Mr. Hill
made the point that the interest a stock
holder had in a contract was precisely the
same rs taxpayer had in it. Could no
taxpayer hold any position in the citv
government? He closed with q powerful
argument, IN which he declared that if the
mayor could remove At his pleasure. he
might allow his partisanship TO sway
him, but III removal for cause. it
was expected that the cause should
he just and substantial and that then
the mayor should be actuated entirely by
upright and pure motives and should
not care whether his party went I'D or
down. \ man could not do that in an Of
fetal capacity which he should not do as a
citizen, He related the story OF a priest
who, walking with q bishop, ripned out an
oath, and by way Of apology said he swore
Is IN individual and not as priest.
But. - asked the bishop, If the individ-
ual goes 10 he'll, what becomes of the
prjest?" Mr.. Hill went on TO say that
Rnehart was not accused of being stock
holder IN the charge. but that he had
voted in favor ~ awarding the contract.
Wen, Jesse Cochran voted in IA
vor Of awarding tile Contract