The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-11-24
Vote on the County Seat Or
dered to Be Canyassed.
Following the Precedent Set in Pacific
County Seat Contest.
Inc browne National Bank. OF spo-
Kane. Faiis-Naea Agitation In Ia
coma Over Jim Dorsey. Fas.-The
Orcutt Murder Trial.

ssoHoNfsH, Nov. e. Special l-Ju dre
AcCsintoa today issued a writ OF man
dsmus ordering Auditor Swerd1ger to pro-
duce the returns of the vote for county
seat at the recent election that IL may be
canyassed. In his opinion Judge Meclin-
ton says:
i he duties Of q canvassing board are
almost wholly ministerial. Having exer-
cised It's limited discretion In the few
minor matters in which it has discre-
tionery power, IL IL then finds the returns
regular on their face. IL can only thence-
forth act ministerially in the performance
of the duties enjosned by the statute. II
the board or any member of 1t refuses TO
perform such duty on the ground that the
election MAS frauduleut.y conduted and
that u is null and void by reason of the
inyasidsty of the law under which 10 was
held. as alleged in this case, can q court.
on application for writ of mandamus,
try and determine such questions before
issuing the writf This is the central,
leading. controlling question in this case.
III this question could have been sub
mifted 10 this court untrammeled by au-
thoritative precedents it would have been
decided promptly and perhaps without
listen ng TO the eloquent and exhaustive
arguments which have so thoroughly en-
ightened IT, But this court cannot enter
Of the supreme court. No court or judi
clai officer oi this state can do that,
anG, whatever may be the opan-
ION of trial judge. il is his
plain duty TO Loyalty follow the law as
construed by the supreme court OF bis
state. To adopt any other practice, even
in cases where an individual wrong might
result. would be fraught with grave pub
lie dangers. But Il IS claimed. and the
claim is supported by able argument. that
this case is unlike the case of Parmeter vs.
Bourne. in s Wash, aud that the DECISION
in that case is mere obiter as 10 the mate
rial issues In this case.
80 tar as regards the question of the
Jurisdiction OF this court to suspend the
ministerial duties of the board pending an
examination by this court of alleged fraud
III the election, / think the case falls
within the case of Parmeter vs.. Bourne
and the case ~ thus set at rest.
Counsel for respondent raised the
point, and support it also with distin-
guished ability, that the act under which
tne election was held Is imperative and
void by reason of radical defects in its
provisions for carrying out its purposes.
From the first this has seemed to my mind
TO De the only point upon which respond
ent could have standing in court. in
view OF the decision in the Parmeter VS..
Bourne case. The question Is perhaps open
10 grave doubts. but under weil-known
rules OF construction, the court will seek
rather To sustain anu uphold an act OF the
saw-makers' power than TO overthrow it,
aud | am mpellei somewhat reluctantly
10 the conclus on that the LAWS IN question
are not so radically defective that they can
not be enforced. and ] therefore grant the
writ OF mandamus."
The attorneys for Snohomish immedI-
ately gave notice of an appeal to the su-
preme court.