The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-22
ADAY OF HOT DEBATE
King County Judgeship Bill
Shelved at Olympia.
M'ELwAlN COULD NOT SAVE IT.
The Railroad Commission Bill Killed BY
Hoole, Iss Author, After . Futile
Struggle in Its Behalf.

bill to create an additional judgeship for
King county was taken up this morning
Nash offered an amendment to include
Pierce county. which was vigorously OPP
posed by Judson, who declared that Pierce
county was not in need of any more
Judges. Judson said ne voted against an
additional Judge for Pierce county four
years ago. but the scheme was put through
at the session two years ago. Judson de-
clared that one of the reason he was sent
here again this time was because the legis-
lature had sadded another judge on his
county when it was not needed.
Tull opposed the bill because he said
there were too many judges in the state
already.
Mays offered an amendment requiring
the counties for which additional judges
were provided to pay all additional ex-
pense. Tucker raised the point that Mays
amendment was unconstitutional. Mays
conceded the point and withdrew his mo-
ton.
Nash declared that it took longer to get
a case to hearing in Pierce than in any
other county in the state, but out of defer
ence to the express wishes of some of his
colleagues he would withdraw his amend
ment.
Sallee injured the bills chances by de-
claring that its purpose was political one
to provide place tor a man not successful
in securing a judgeship last fall. He in
sisted that King county was not in need Of
the extra Judge.
Rinehart favored the bill, and described
the encountered condition of the King
county court dockets and tho long delay
experienced by iitigants.
Wheeler said that the present Judges
we're overworked by the business they were
required to transact.
Tull thought there was no need for any
more superior court judges. He believed
that the delays described were due to the
laziness of lawyers.
Winchell opposed the measure. because
many of the heaviest taxpayers of King
county had protested against its passage.
Hurd said that an obstacle in the way of
the bill was the division of the King county
delegation.
Baker expressed the opinion that If Sc
attic was half as bad as the Tacoma papers
represented, King county needed two more
judges.
Mays thought that judges could be called
in from other counties to clear the King
county docket.
Tucker argued that as the King county
members were divided, the general tax
payers should be given the benefit Of the
doubt and the bill be defeated.
McElwain, who introduced the bill,
spoke at length in favor of it. saying:
He was not a candidate for the appointment
and did not expect to be. even II the office was
created, but he was one of q committee com-
posed of Republicans, Democrats and Populists,
ni,,fo hv TIM ufv Re- oiasi
aud this committee. after carefully looking into
the merits OF the matter, had reported unan-
imously that there should be additional
judge. Therefore he did not regard It as . polit-
ical matter in any sense of the word He had
talked with leading members of the bar in Seat
tie. and with the present superior court judges.
and had found . sentiment in favor of an sddi-
,ional judge that should not be ignored. He
made the statement, and challenged its contra
diction. that the judges Of King county did more
work than the judges of any other judicial dis
trict in the state. and ex-Judge Lichtenberg had
declared to him that his health had
been broken down by the arduous
duties connected with the work when
he held the ONCE OF superior judge in
King county. There were now moro than 300
cases at issue in tho county, and perhaps 1000
that it was practically impossible to bring to
trial on account OF the crowded condition of
the docket, and 1t was impossible to give the
| attention to matters of litigation in many in.
stances that their importance required 81 far
As the expense was concerned. the people of
King county would be willing to stand IL all,
| for IL really q matter of economy to provide
| enough judges to dispatch business promptly,
aud he had air, ady presented petitions from
some of the heaviest axpayers in the county
asking Tor this additional judge, and he be-
| lieved that these men had looked into the
merits OF the case before signing the petitions.
He also called attention to the fact that more
-
| King county than from any other combined
| judicial districts of the same population in the
| state.
Gilman said he had not voted on any
| question that had so far come up in the
| house with more reluctance that he would
| vote on this bill. He did not believe there
| was any politics in the bill, though if there
was King county Republicans did not dis
play their usual shrewdness in failing to
| conceal 1t. He continued:
He was entirely unprejudiced in the matter,
| but he was of the opinion that with the help
| proposed by bin directing the superior judges
of the different counties to exchange work he
! thought King county could get along for the
next two years He had noticed that the judges
seemed to be gaining on the docket during the
| past year. and he thought that when business
Was little more settled three judges could
keep the docket pretty well cleaned up He said
that after making somo inquiry he had found
that the members of the bar and the taxpayers
| were divided on the question. and he therefore
| thought the case WAS not strong enough TO
warrant the passage of the bill, and he would
vote against it. He declared that the salary OF
| the judge himself would lie q mere bagatelle in
the item OF expenses. as there would De small
army o. baiIffs and other court officials In con-
neetion with the new department. and that the
expense would be very large In the aggregate
Baker contended that the constitution
msde full provision for cases like the one
| the bill was designed 10 meet, by provid-
ing for calling in outside judges.
McElwain replied that while the bill
| now pending to direct the calling in of
! outside judges was meritorious. there was
one objection 10 il, that when an outside
| Judge tried case lawyers and htigants
were put 10 great Inconvenience and ex-
pense in arguing motions for new trials,
and in settling statements of facts.
vote on the bill VAS then reached. re-
suiting in the defeat of the measure.
whe-eupon the senate bill, providing tor
calling in outside judges. was taken up
and passed.
aOoLE's RAILROAD BILL KILLED.
Its Author Preeonceivc6 Its Fate and
Moved Its Shelving.