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

that the mayor had no jurisdiction. lie
asked for ruling on that point
The mayor ruled that under the charter
he had the power to try the case.
The answer OF Major Rinehart was then
put in. He admits that he Is stock
holder in the Home Insurance Company.
but denies that he voted in favor of the
city insuring in that company. He also
repeats that as to buying scrip he did 1t by
request of the holder and at another time
at the desire of the city comptroller. In
reply to William Donworth, the counsel
said the amount of one warrant was about
sos and the other S2f2.73.
The first witness called was George J.
Stoneman, the city clerk. Mr.. Jacobs
raised the objection to taking testimony.
but was overruled and the policy of the
Home Fire Insurance Company was iden-
titled: it is for $94. 80 premium.
Mr.. Hill asked that other policies be pro-
duced in order to show that this was for
only small part and that the amount had
been spread over all the companies. This
would show that Mr.. Rinehart had not
taken advantage of his position to lug
insurance into his company.
The mayor-Wc will never get through with
this if we keel-haul the whole country for tes-
timony.
Andrew Blackstone. deputy comptrol-
Ter, was called to show that the price paid
was 9S4 for the warrant. In cross-exam-
ination he testified that $33, S57.9S was sold
a: 9Sh. This was the lot of which
Major Rinehart bought 1924 worth at the
request of the city comptroller.
Major Rinehart was called and ex-
amined by Mr.. Blaine.
He denied that he had ever handled any
warrants, except the savings of his chill
dren, put into Washington street grade
scrip seven or eight years ago. His sons
share was 500, and he gave
the check for that amount, but
it was long time ago. The
only transactions in scrip he had ever
been concerned in for himself were the two
warrants spoken of. He explained how it
came that Ferris had asked him to buy a
salary warrant in order to help out to the
extent of 1898. The men were waiting for
their pay and it would save sending down
town. The other was a salary warrant
which policeman asked him to take. He
had never solicited or tried to buy war;
rants. AS to the insurance, when the let
ter from the Home Insurance Company
was read. he made il known that he was a
stakeholder to his colleagues, and sought
advice as to whether his connection would
make it invalid for him to agree to place
anv insurance with 1t.
Mr.. Donworth said in view of the admis-
sions of Major Rinehart they would rest
their case there.
+. W. D. Holbrook, for the accused, tes-
titled as TO the insurance having been dis
tributed over q large number of com pa
MES; on the dav the Home Fire Insurance
Company had $1,000 placed with it insur-
ance to the amount of SlS,25O was placed.
The whole amount Of city insurance was
about $4,000
ID. A. Spencer was called, but his evil
dence was only as to a matter of detail
This closed the testimony and Mr.. DON
worth proceeded with his argument.
He first referred to the advice of the
former corporation counsel and declared
that an official, although obtaining legal
opinion. would not be exonerated from
the penalty of any oifense against the law
committed by him if that opinion should
prove 10 be wrong, even if it was given by
an authorized legal adviser in good faith.
Mr.. Donworth continued that it was a
opinion OF his predecessor, but the circum-
stances required him to state distinctly
the grounds upon which he differed from
the views taken. He reviewed the evil
dcnce touching upon most of the points
brought ont
Mr.. Blaine also argued that the opinion
Of Mr.. Jacobs to the board was not de-
Tense; he believed Mr.. Rinehart would
leave this inquiry without faint upon
his moral character, bur suppose hereafter
the city had q corrupt board Of works and
corrupt corporation counsel. assent now
10 the defense set up ight become most
pernicious precedent. He renewed the
argument used in the demurrer pro-
ceetings.
W, Lair Hill submitted that all the tes-
um0ny on this case was proof of the
honest desire OF Major Rinehart to do his
duty. 1t was competent to show that an
official was acting in good faith. and
although that might not release him
from responsibility, yet it had a
bearing as To his turpitude or
IA ala .fdes. The city provided an
attorney 10 whom officials should go for
legal advice, and tie same city could not
blame that official for following the citv's
own advice. If Mr. Rinehart had a part
ner who signed a contract without his
knowledge. would that he sufficient 10
warrant his removal?
The MAYOR asked If it would not, even
after he acquired knowledge OF it?
NJ. Hill answered that the intention of
the charter was 20 protect against corrup-
ton, against conscious conniying at con-
tracts in the interest of officials and TO
the detriment OF the city. To say that
such ~ act as Mr.. R:nehart's was a wall
fui violation and not an accidental, inno-
cent or even unconscious infringement.
was TO make the provisions OF the charter
= snare and trap for the unwary.
The clear purpose OF the charter is that
only he wAo does wrong shall suffer nun
lshment. The purpose Of the provisions
governing the board Of public works was
that they should be tree from political or
partisan tamrerinc. but that the officials
could he removed if they did anything to
the prejudice OF the clty's interests. He
agrees With Mr.. Blame that nobody seri-
ously considered Mr.. Rinehart's character
10 be affected by these charges
This closed the case. and the MAYOR an
noOnced that he would file his findings
with the city clerk
The charges against Mr.. Hebron will
be heard al 10 o'clock this morning.
Poker Players Punished.
When the cases of Frank Baker. Charles
kittle. Harvey VIII and J. F. McGr2th.
who were arrested Saturday night by De-
tective Snrigzs upon a charge Of PLAYING
poker IN the European house. on Wash
inston street. were arraiEned Tor trial YES
terday before Judge Rivers EIttle and
VIII pleaded guilty and were 0nei $40