The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-03
ro.xp OF PUBLIC WORKS.


VI.
n, 70 test the validity Of the ap-
nointueu: of the latter to the board of
,uhlic works, came up before Judge Lang
lev on demurrer yesterday. The facts in
The case are as follows: When the present
Democratic administration came into
mower the board Of public works was COM
POSED of two Republicans and one Demo
erst In order TO secure control Of the
hoard and of the offices which were subject
20 the power of the board. it became
necessary for the mayor to remove
one Republican member. As the mayor
had the power Of removal only for cause,
spa Is he was unable to force either Of tho
Republican members Of the board to re.
sign he preferred formal charges against
! both Republican members, Maj. Rinehart
/ snd Mr.. Hebron, accusing them of mis-.
kassnce. malfeasance and non-feasance in
ehce and proceeded to hear the charges
before himself as judge. At the hearing of
TIE case it was shown that both Mai. Rine-
bar, and Mr.. Hebron had regularly and
properly attended to their duties Is MEM
bey Of the board as required by the
charter. but that they had not attempted
10 perform the duties which by the ex-
press terms OF the charter were delegated
TO the heads of the various departments
scting under the direction of the board.
Twas further shown at the hearing that
tie insurance upon the property Of tho
city had been divided among the diff9A
%. agencies Of the city, and that only .
snail portion Of the insurance had been
placed with the Home Insurance Com
psny. of Seattle, in which Mai. Rinehart
vas stakeholder. and in companies
represented by the Washington Territory
Investment Company ~ agent, in which
Mr. Hebron was . trustee, but not q
Hockholder in tho sense of having any
pecuniary interest whatever in the COM
psny. The mayor in his decision
found that Mai. Rinehart, al
though q stockhoider in the Home
Insurance. Company, with which a
contract Of insurance was dire city made,
vas not guilty Of violation of the char
ter. but that Mr.. Hebron, who was not
isockhoider even. but only de facto q
trustee in . company that acted a. the
agent of an insurance company with
shich insurance was placed. was guilty of
suoiation of the charter provision which
lohibits public official from being inter-
stsd in contract with the city. It was
fur,her shown At tho hearing that insur-
Nce rates were fixed by the Pacific In
s1rance Union and that the rates in all
companies were tho same, 20 that the in.
te!es.s Of the city were in no way preju-
diced, as all insurance companies charged
inform rates.
The hearing before Judge Langley yes
hrt az Was upon ademurrer to the answer
Of the defendant. J. w. Van Brocklin.
Mr. A. +. Burleigh. counsel for the
Plaintiff, contended that the facts set forth
10 the charges Of the mayor and in his
findings did not in law constitute suffi-
cent cause for removal. He argued that
had not been charged nor found that
the board OF public works. BY reason Of the
alleged negligence of Mr.. Hebron, had
BOT properly discharged the duties Inn
posed upon them by the charter, and
Nat so long as the board as q
Whole properly performed their duties
the division of those duties among
as different members Of the board was a
natter entirely within their own jurisdic-
ron under the express terms of the pro-
Visions Of the charter. He insisted that it
night be true that Mr.. Hebron might
have failed. as the mayor charged, to
perform the work delegated by the board
under the charter to the superintendent OF
esers. the street commissioner, the
ely engineer. and still have been guilty
no neglect OF his proper duties as
member OF the board.
IN the matter of the placing Of insur-
shce, Mr.. Burleigh argued that Mr.. He'll
won IS trustee and not 8 stakeholder in
% insurance agency had no interest in
ne contracts of insurance made with the
NY within the meaning of the charter
Ioaloiuon. and he further contended
y" even If lie had been stakeholder in
Ee company as alleged he would not
save hsd an interest in any contract
van the city of such q nature a.
have come within the terms of
we charter. 4 violation Of this pro-
'aen OF the charter in order to have
.'hs'!iaied cause for a removal must
save been substantial and willful vioia-
s'a and one that might have induced a
'oss 20 The city and prevented member
~ me Board from properly protecting the
interests OF the city. A rule OF law, Mr..
'a'1eigh contended. mus, he reasonably
sOnstFGed and cannot be carried to absurd
~,s'Ns 10 encompass political end.
az MOVE, as counsel for thedefendant,
,pea'ehGei on the other hand that NJ.
.'''SFon could not have been q trustee of
W company named without having been
's'oeAAo'der n the sense OF having the
N-''ao'e 50 Vel IS the legal ownership OF
d Nh..e admitting that the interests
!. sHe city might not have been suhstan-
Affected he argued that any interest
'e'rr remote or indirect and whether 3
FeeAiaTy interest or not in any contract
!. 'A ne ci'y was within the meaning of
0As3teT. and that any official of the
- whether acting innocently or not who
sacA an interest was subject
removal even though the interest
s not substantial one. He denied
Person could he de taeto trustee of
~ po'aton Without being a ssockhoider.
- ho"es further argued tina, the char
ssAsemp aIed that the board of public
saoa.d personally superintend
= YORK done under their control. and
'Aey had no right 70 rely upou the
a. 'nendA,ions and representations of
asacs of the diseren, Departments
~.ns under them
langley 81 The conclusion Of the
s~Aenis took the case under adylssueut.
Agent Wants His Com TN ssion.
. L'vsrmore is . real estate agent
wants s@l2. 50 commission from G.. W.
Tor hndlng purchaser ior YounC's