Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1892-05-06
COUNCILMAN K1NeHoRNs VIEWS
CITY OF FAIRHAvEN, May 8, 1892

| OITN OF fAlRHANENi may D looA
EDITOR HERALD: / have been re-
quested to state my reasons for urging
the suspension of action in measures
now before the city council until the
question whether or not the city OF
Fairhaven has a legal existence as a
municipal corporation shall have been
passed upon and decided by some com
petent authority. II Is said that the ac-
ton of the council in declining to pro-
coed with the transaction of business Is
virtually an admission of weakness on
the part of the city. If this were the
first time that the city government had
been threatened with total destruction,
such argument would hold good. The
fact is, however, that during the past
year the consideration by the council OF
any matter more than ordinary pubic
importance has invariably been the
signal for the same hue and cry. IL
was said that the issue of Sl5O,00O OF
municipal bonds would be invalid9ted
and that defects of such serious ma
ture existed i'm the proceeding of incor-
poration that the citizens of Fairhaven
might at any time find themselves en-
tirely destitute of any system of mu-
nicipal government. The dispatch of
public business by the council has been
hampered and impeded, not so much
by the insinuations i'm themselves, but
by the possibility of their being founded
in fact and by the knowledge on the
part of the council that any citizen
might at any time brio suit against
the municipal government and demand
that evidence be produced to show that
the city of Fairhaven had legal eX-
istence as a municipal corporation. Up
to the present time, however, no speci-
fic charge has been submitted. The
complaint of Charles Schering against
the city is brought at time when two
important propositions are before the
cOuncil the sale, at premium, of S75,-
600 of municipal bonds, and the con-
struction of four sections of the pro-
, posed sewer system.
In common justice to the citizens of
. Fairhaven, the purchasers of the bonds
and the contractors who shall under
+ take the construction of sewers, it is
[ necessary that before the council shall
, act in these matters, decision be had
as to whether such action would be
= legal. The main cause of loss on street
Y and sewer contracts in the past has
v been the discount on city warrants.
: Contractors who have expected to rea-
lie par value on their warrants have
y had to suffer a shrinkage of ten to
y twenty per cent and have consequent
i " lost money on good contracts. The
q bids now offered on sewer work are
. based upon the assurance that dollar
e for dollar will be paid for warrants as
l. soon as presented. Until the city council
Al is satisfied that this assurance can be
= kept, no action ought to be taker
- i'm the matter of awarding
l. any part of the proposed work
e When this question is settled once, ii il
q settled forever. 1t is stated that it vii
:. be necessary to have the decision of th'
!. superior court acted upon by the SUI
al preme court of the state. So far as | an
re individually concerned, as one of thu
lt members of the city council, the decis
ion of the superior court is sufficien
W assurance as to whether or not the cit,
Al of Fairhaven has any legal right t
De exist and to transact business as
w municipal corporation. The case II
:. question has been set for hearing OF
az Saturday of this week and it is safe t.
u say that the lull i'm the transaction o
RI the affairs of the city will be of yer,
short duration.
The complaint recites that no petition
signed by sixty or more qualified cleo
tors, setting forth the proposed bound
d. aries and containing as nearly as coulC
r. be done the number of inhabit mt
l., therein, was ever presented to tn
~ county commissioners. Reference t.
nc the records of the county board show
mt that such petition is on file and tn
at third name on the list of 2l0 signature
49, is that of the plaintiff, Charles Schel
." ing; the proposed boundaries are full.
described and the number of inhab
tants is stated in the body of the pet
,c- ton as not less than $500. This pet
4, ton Is shown to have been filed Apr
% |, 1890, and at special meeting of tn
board on April 18th an election wt
Ike ordered to be held on May 9th. TIL
result of that election was the castin
of / ,407 votes, all in favor of incorpori
RI ton.
~ Schering's complaint further recit'
ig that no such petition was ever pul
ed lished two weeks before the time of i
mt being presented to the board and tn;
, IL no notice was published stating Il
time of the meeting at which the sal
petition would be presented. III
sworn statement of the agent at TIL
ors time of the Fairhaven Publishing Con
i'd pany with copies of the publishe
90 notice attached is on file in the off
of the commissioners and is sufficiel
YES evidence that this charge is withol
has foundation.
as The complaint also sets forth tn
nod "the board of county commissions
never had any jurisdiction whatever
establish and define the boundaries
the defendant city, nor to give mott
lew of any election for the purpose of d
Iuc- iermining whether the same shouid
,,,s incorporated
The foregoing clauses in the cor
on plant are quoted in order to show Il
at insufficiency Of the ground upon whit