The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-20
THE WRIT DENIED.
Charter Amendments Declared
to Be Legally Adopted.
PETITIONER TAKES AN APPEAL.
Supreme Court to Pass on Points OF
Law At an EARLY Date-Nordstrom's
Motion for New Trial.

Judge Lichtenburg last night denied the
peremptory writ of mandamus asked by
V. P. Wiesenthal, who received the second
highest vote for delegate from the Third
ward, to compel the city council to seat
Ahim as a member of the house of dele
gates. The court reached this decision
after he had listened to exhaustive argu-
nents from 6 to II 80 o'clock.
Edgar Lehman opened the argument on
behalf of the petitioner, and was followed
By Alfred Battle and then by Judge Jacobs
in opposition to the granting of the writ.
Junius Rochester closing for the petit
TONER. There were three principal points
advanced by Wiesenthal's attorneys to
support their position that the amend
ment which called for the reduction of the
number of delegates from each ward from
two to one was unconstitutional. The
first of these was that the amendme nt did
not receive sufficient number of
votes. This objection was ba ed on q diff
ference in the wording of the state cons.i-
tuition and the city charter. The charter
says that amendments to a charter may
be made if, after certain necessary pro-
4 ceedings, they are ratified by majority
Of the qualified voters voting thereon"
The constitution says amendments must
be submitted to the people at an election,
and eff at such election a majority of all
the lawful voters thereat shall BY their
votes ratlfy any amendment" etc. It
was maintained that the constitution pro-
vision should prevail and that a majority
of all the votes cast at the general election
should be required to carry the amend
ment. There were nearly 5000 votes cast
in all and but 400 for the amendment in
question.
The second point raised was that the
council had not taken the necessary steps
required by law before submitting the
amendment to the people.
The third point was that in submitting
what the council did to the people moth
ing in fact was submitted, as the amend
!. ments were simply numbered on the ball
L lots instead of being named, and that
thirty-seven were submitted instead of the
eighteen passed by the city council.
In giving his decision Judge Lichten-
, berg said that he would like to have more
time to consider the case, but as it was i'm
perative to have the questions of law in
volved decided as soon as possible by the
supreme court, he would pass upon them.
First-Thst the city council took the neees-
sary and prescribed steps to submit the amend
ments to the people.
Second-That the council duly and legally
submitted the amendments to the people for
ratification.
Third-That the amendments to the charter
received the required number of votes and
were legally adopted.
: The judge added that while reasonably
satisfied as to the first and third conclu-
sions of law there was some doubt in his
mind as to the second, but he desired to
have them brought before the supreme
court as soon as possible, and he under
stood that there would be an opportunity
on next Thursday. He then announced
that the writ was denied, and Mr.. Roches-
ter, on behalf of the petitioner, excepted
to the ruling and gave notice of appeal.