The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-28
POINTS IN THE CASE.
Appeal to Supreme Court on
Charter Amendments.
THE CONTROVERSIES RAISED.
Questions to Be Submitted at Olympia
Today-The Validity OF All
Amendments Involved.

The appeal to the supreme court, which
is to decide the question whether there
shall be nine or eighteen members of the
house of delegates. has been set for hear
ing at Olympia today. Corporation Coun-
sci Donworth and Battle d Shipley will
appear for the city council and Edgar
Lehman and Junius Rochester for the
appellants. The appeal is taken from the
superior court by V. p. Wiesenthal, who
will be entitled to sit in the house from
the Third ward if the court should hold
that the amendments are invalid.
There are three points relied upon by
Wiesenthal in support of his claim. One
is that the amendment relating to the re-
duction of the number of delegates was
not properly passed by the council; that
the amendment was not legally submitted
to the people for approval or rejection,
and that the amendment did not receive
majority of the votes cast at the recent
election.
Counsel for Wiesenthal submit to the
court that an amendment was properly
passed by the council and took the pre-
scribed course, but when it was a second
time considered by the council an amend
ment was made, and that therefore the
osition, which needed to go through all
the formalities of the original amend
ment.
To this the city's attorneys reply that the
proposition was not changed at the sec
ond consideration, but the form was al
tered so as to make provision for its
practical application. As matter of fact
the change made was the addition of the
@I.N I'D
then only those candidates receiving the
highest number of votes should be seated,
but if not then those receiving the high
est and next highest number of votes
would necessarily be entitled to seats.
The second point is one which will
probably arouse most interest, as it pre-
sents question as to which there seems
to be no precedent, at least none of the
counsel seem to be aware of any, as their
citations on the point are very general.
The city council proposed certain
amendments and submitted them origi-
nally numbered 1 to II. After they had
been finally passed they were rearranged
and numbered from 1 to 81 The inten-
ton was to submit each distinct PROPOSE
ton to the voters as infinitely as possible,
SO that no voters should be compelled to re-
ject one integral proposition because of its
being joined to another. Counsel for
Wiesenthal dwell on this, and if the court
sustain their view it invalidates all the
amendments. Counsel not only question
the legality of the change, but declare that
if it could be made it should have been
done by ordinance.
The answer made to this is that the
official announcement was the source of
information to the voter; that in the case
of charter amendments of such length and
completely it would be practically impos-
sible to embody them in ballot, and if that
could be done reference must also be had
to the charter in order to ascertain in what
the proposed change consisted. "Informa-
ton concerning the matter to be voted upon
must be acquired independent of the
ballot"
Counsel going before the solemn supreme
court would not use any argument that
seemed to approach levity, or they might
tell the court that if they condemn the
ballots on this score, it might be reason
| able to expect that on ballots for a gen.
eral election the issues of the campaign
should be stated thereon, as they are
| usually of greater importance than the
names of the candidates.
The third point in controversy is as to
| the majority vote. The constitution saws
that amendments to city charters are to be
submitted to the voters, and ifthey are ap-
proved by "a majority of the voters voting
thereon" ETC., they become the law. The
charter says they are to be submitted to
the people. and 'if approved by a majority
OF the voters voting thereat," ETC. Wies-
enthals counsel maintains that the char
ter is the rule of guidance in this case, and
that majority of all the voters voting at
| the election did not vote for the amend
ments. The city's counsel contend that
| the word used in the constitution must be
adopted, even if the use of the word
"thereat" in the charter could be con-
strued to mean what the appellants say it
does.