The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-07-21
THREE BILLS VETOED
Another Move Against Wilson
Is Checkmated.
HIS SON NOT TO GIVE BONDS.
The Ordinance Requiring $4,000
Security Il Disapproved-Reject
Of Wusthof,s Claim.

Mayor Ronald, notwithstanding he is
suffering from an eruption of boils, man.
aged yesterday to sign number of ordi-
nances and to veto bills. One of these is
the bill requiring the cashier of the water
department to furnish bonds to the amount
OF $4,000. The mayor vetoes it for the
following reasons:
herewith return board of aldermen bill No.
o., entitled, "An ordinance requiring the cas- h.
Ter In the office of the superintendent of water
WORKS to give bond to the city in the sum of
*0,ooO, without my approval This bill, hav-
ing passed the council during my absence
reached the hands of the acting mayor, by
whom the same was referred to the corporation
counsel for his opinion as to it's legality
Inc corporation counsel. in giving his opinion
IN writing concerning its illegality, has pre-
sented the law of the case so clearly that I, be-
ing unable to improve upon the same, cheer
fully adopt it as my reason for my dlsapprovaI
OF this ordinance. 1t is as follows:
III think the city cannot exact a bond from the
shier in the office of super ntendent of water
works without thereby lessening its claim upon
the superintendent. The city charter provides
In the eleventh paragraph of section three of
article eight, that there shall be a superinten-
dent of water works who shall, under the difec-
ton OF the board of public works, have the
management OF the water-works and the water
De to keep an account with all water consumers
and to collect monthly all water rates aud rents
ana TO pay the amount so collected at least once
each day into the city treasury, taking receipts
In duplicate therefor, one of which shall be filed
with the city comptroller and one retained in
his office; he shall give bond to the city with
ssreties to the satisfaction of the board OF pub
tic works in such sum as the board may deter
mine, which bonds shall be fled by the secre-
tary OF the board and approved by the board.
1.-The foregoing provisions make the superin-
tendent OF water-works responsible for the
water rents collected in his office and the city
Cannot exact a bond from subordinate officer
directly to the city and still hold the superin-
tendeut personally responsible therefor.
"The evident intention of the charter is that
the board of public works shall fix the bond of
the superintendent in such sum that the city
will be amply protected for all acts of himself or
assistants. If a superintendent is so negligent
as not to exact bonds from his assistants, that
fact should bear on the fitness of the superin-
tendent to hold his Office, but in my opinion,
would not justify the city council in demanding
bond from his subordinate directly to the
city,
The other two refer to the claim of F.
w. Wusthoff and Anna G. Wusthoff for
$500 for damages to property on Terrace
and Third streets, through the change of
grade on Terrace street. One ordinance
merely transfers the amount of money
from the general fund for the purpose of
paying the amount awarded by the other.
The veto is as follows:
/ herewith return, without my approval,
board OF aldermen bill No. 60. entitled, can Or
dinance apprOpriating to Anna q. Wusthoff and
F. w. Wusthoff her husband, the sum OF fifteen
hundred dollars 81, 500 from the street fund in
payment of damages sustained by them by rea-
son of the change of grade of Terrace street"
/ disapprove this at this time for the following
reasons: i am not prepared to say that the
claim of Mrs. Wusthoff against the city is il
legal. But I am advised by the corporation
counsel that there is now pending in the SUI.
preme court of our state case wherein
is involved the direct question and
principle upon which this claim against
the city is based. Decision has
not yet been rendered by the supreme court
pay this sum of money ana the supreme court
shall in the near future decide the question
pending against the legality OF the claim, the
city will be out the sum of 81, 500 and have no
redress. While a refusal to pay at this time
works no injury to Mrs. Wusthcff for the rea-
son that should the supreme court decide the
question in the case pending upholding the
legality of such claims, the council can then
psss the ordinance again and Mrs. Wusthof
can receive her money. For the above reasons
] have deemed it the part of wisdom to defer,
for the time being, this payment, and the only
means l know of for deferng the same il by
disapproving at this time this ordinance