The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-12-05
THE ALMsnoUsE CASE.
0seunds Upon Which ths Commissions
Contest the 1njunctf0n.

Grounds Upon Which the Commissioners
Content the Injunction.
The aimshouse case Ia again taking mp
b the attention Of Judge Langley in the SUI
psrior court. The whole afternoon yes
tefdsy was consumed by the attorneys in
arguing the motion OF the plaintiffs. Will
Ism Cochrane and others. to enjoin Fred
Gasch, John Wooding and A. L. Ruther-
ford. as county commissioners. from pay
Ing out any more money on the construc-
ton of the building. The plea of the
plaintiffs was that the commissioners had
no right TO use the public money for such
purpose without first having submitted
the matter to a vote Of the taxpayers; IL
was set forth that the action of the COM
nissioners was illegal and not in compli-
spce with the law.
William II. White. attorney for the de-
fsndants. replied to the argument OF the
Plaintiffs attorney at length. He stated
that the defendants would rely upon four
principal propositions to defeat the plain
tits In this action.
"First--Thst the contract the defend
ants had entered into was not unlawful;
that the com missioners had q right to
make the contract without submitting il
10 vote Of the people; that whether or
rot there was surplus fund In the treas
) Dry cuts no figure; that section 234 OF
First Hills Code has been abrogated by
the constitution of the state, aud section 1
OF an act authorizing and empowering Or
ganized counties Of the state TO contract
indebtedness Was approved March -. $780,
Further, section 2s4 Of First Hills Code
does not apply to aimshouses. Sec
ton i.297, First Hills Code. which was
enacted subsequent to the law on which
the bill Is founded, authorizes the com.
n'sssioners TO construct aimshouses when
ever they deem il proper, without any
vote or surplus.
''seeond-Thst If the commissioners be-
ieved, and honestly acted on such belief,
or II there IN Tact was surplus fund on
hand nj the time the contract was entered
into, sufficient in the opinion of the COM
mlsssoners TO meet the liability, then this
action will not lie.
'Third-The plaintiffs cannot maintain
this action. No private person or num-
Der OF persons can assume 60 DO cham
plons of the community and. in its
hhslf, challenge the public officers to
meet them in q court of justice to defend
Their official acts. No offer is made to re-
ttore 10 Rigby or this defendant that
whiea the county has received.
"fonrth-fhe plaintiffs had q complete
remedy at law by appeal from the order
asMuinS the contract and should not now
be heard 20 litigate in this form"
In bis brief Mr. White says;
There is not a single allegation in the
esil that the commissioners were iniu-
eaced by corrupt or fraudulent means, or
hat they acted fraudulcntly or eorruptiy.
The allegation that the defendants grossly
varied and departed from said plans. spec
meataons aud drawings and from the
iefms of the contract To the great cheaper
tAsk~ a a 80. -
and 50 as to make the building useless Tor
snS purpose whatever Is not an averment
% tact and is immateFial unless fraud and
corruption ia doing so - charged. Mere
ssfof In judgment is not sufficient"
Before Roger = Greene had finished his
fspsy tn Mr.. White Judge Langley adj.
faraed court Ter the evening. The case
Wiz be resumed this morning as soon as
court conysnes.