The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-11-13

Thinks That Under q Supreme Court
Decision There Can BE No Contest.

Dectsion AHere IAN BE NO contest
EVERETT, Nov Il.-Tspecial. Now that
the county seat contest is developing so
much fnesse the legal aspects of the case
are discussed with particular interest.
The decision Of the supreme court of this
state. fled on January Is. 1894. in the case
of the removal of the county seat from
oysteryiile To South Bend, in Pacific
county, establishes a precedent here. The
gist of the decision in that case was this:
In the absence of statutory authority
equity cannot inquire into the Legality of
an election held TO determine the removal
OF county seat and TO enjoin such re-
moyal, at the instance of a taxpayer. be-
cause OF fraud ia canyassing the votes and
declaring the result.
Chief Justice Dunbar rendered the de-
elsion. The facts in the case. briefly. were
that at the general election held November
: ise2, there was submitted to the voters
OF Pacific county proposition to remove
the county seat from Oystervlile 70 Sealand
or South Bend. On November l., ls92, the
board Of county commissioners canvassed
the votes on the proposition and ascer-
tained from the poll books that l. a6e votes
were cast on the proposition: that
South Bend received 9s4 sealand
SO and oysterville foa South Bend
was thereupon declared TO be the
county seat. and an order Was
made requiring tho county records and
archives 10 &c moved to South Bend on or
before The 4sh day of February. Is9S. ID.
q. Parmeter. citizen and taxpayer OF
Ovstervllle, brought al action against the
county commissioners and the county au-
dttor TO SET aside and yacate the order of
the county com mIss.oneFs declaring South
send 20 be the county seat. and asked for
an Injunction 10 restrain the defendants
from removing the county records. etc.
The defendants demurred to the COM
rlaint. alleging. among other things, shst
the snperior court had no jurisdiction OF
the subject matter o. the action, and the
demurrer vas sustained By the court on
this grcurd. The complaint alleges fraud
in the counting Of Ehs votes by the judges
o. election and N issuing ir1uGHleat re-
tarns TO the board Of county commission
ers % such election.
Il = conceded tAat there IS no provision
made under ihs special !aw Ter gns re-
rnoyal Of county seats Tor 8 contest ia cAss
OF illegal voting. unless there be right OF
ApneAi from the action Of the eoauty com
rnlsssoners ia esnvasslng the votes. IL is
insisted by the appellant IN this instance
ii the law woaid warrant SAGA an appeal
i Noa8d be absolutely Intellectual. Nish
the view We take @. the lAx Il - noa
necessary 10 pass upon Iae question: Of the
rlrht 81 appeal IN this character Of case.
Ths statement Of facts SCI ~ IN tae con-
rlaint sppeals 10 us very strongly Tor re-
lief and shoNS "a aggravated cas- OF Per
xcrtsns the elrEsioa Ass aud thw 4rtlnx
the wlu of the yoters. and. hsa ss the
authority. ae would gladly place the
rarfieS upon the proof Of their slIsgauoas.
Bat from an invessi gaiien Of the las in-
xa.viag the evixin. the history and the
issrisaictioa os eoagts Of equity ws are
tasoesf 10 the eoac4usssa that the ccart ha.
no Jurisdiction over shss case. and, lament
aase IS "a may ee. thai tie voter - Ielt