Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1894-04-20

Denver VS.. City OF Spokane, supra. lhey
argue in that behalf, that since the pro-
visions of the act of 1890, which purport
to authorize the incorporation or rein
corporation of such towns, were uncon-
stitutional, everything done hereunder
would be absolutely void, and effectual
for no purpose whatever. This is doubt
less true, and if the act under consider
alton had stopped with the announce
ment of its intention to legalize such
towns as had been so incorporated or re-
Incorporated, it would have been inef-
fectual for the purpose for which its aid
is invoked by appellants here. But it
did not stop here, it went further, and
provided that if those bodies which had
so attempted to incorporate or re-incor-
porate had, at the date OF the passage of
the act an organized government which
had been maintained since the date of
such attempted incorporation, such or
ganized bodies should thereafter be legal
interpretations. In other words, the leg
islature did not seek specifically to legal
ize the incorporation or attempted in
corporation which being void was per-
haps incapable of legalization, but rather
sought to legislate as to constituted bod
les which in fact existed, and were main
tanning under claim of authority so to do,
the character OF municipal corporations.
In our opinion it was within the power
of the legislature so to deal with these
de facto bodies regardless of the question
as to the rightfulness of their assumption
Of the powers under which they were
purporting to act. In the absence ofany
constitutional inhibition as to special
legislation it would be competent for the
legislature to take notice OF The fact that
body of men occupying certain local
ity We're assuming to exercise certain
powers, and to declare that thereafter
they should constitute corporation with
such powers as they had heretofore been
assuming to exercise.
Such being tie case we can see no rea-
son why the legislature could not take
notice OF the fact that there was class
Of such bodies, and enact laws in rela-
ton thereto without infringing the pro-
visions OF the constitution against special
election. The fact that the inhabitants
OF certain locality by their own action
have assumed to act in a particular Ca
paCity distinguished from that of the
people at large so separates them as a
class from the rest of the people OF the
state, that the legislature may properly
deal Herewith in different manner
than with the rest of the people without
its action being special legislation. 1t is
true that there can hardly be such Il
thing as a corporation de faCto in a strict
sense, but it is equally true that there
may well be such a segregation of body
OF people in a certain locality by their
action and assumption of power that
they do in fact bear different relation
to the government from that of the peo.
pie who have not 50 segregated them
selves.
In our opinion the act in question was
constitutional as applied to cities like
the one under consideration, and by its
terms makes them valid corporations
with the powers and duties under which
they were assuming to act at the date Of
its passage. The Judgment OF the super
ior court must be reversed, and the cause
remanded ior further proceedings.
HoYT, J.
We concur, DUNBAR, G, J ScoTE J.
/ see no difference between this case
and that OF the town of Denver VS.. Spo-
kane. If the legislature could not pass
a valid law haying in contemplation the
void interpretations attempted under the
act OF 1888, it could not do the same
thing under the guise Of a yalidation act
in 1898. STILES, j.
! concur in aboye.--ANDUs, J.