The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-19

CAPITOL WARRANTS GOOD.
An Important Decision by the stat
Supreme Court.

An Important Decision by the STATE
Supreme Court.
OLYMPIA. July is-[Special. "A case
entitled Joseph S. Allen, plaintiff, vs.. L.
r Grimes. state auditor, respondent. was
argued in the supreme court on motion
tor peremptory writ directed to respond
ent requiring him to issue to plaintiff a
warrant on the state capitol building fund
for So upon a statement of services and
expenses duly certified to the state audi
tor. The record further reeites that of the
1872, 900 acres of land of the United States
granted to the state of Washington for the
purpose of erecting public buildings at the
capital, CO, 57233 acres have been selected
as the selection approved by the United
States. and that the appraised value of the
lands 50 selected is upwards OF 81, 800. 0o0
Further, that none of said lands have been
sold, aud that there is no money in said
fund, for which reason the state auditor
claims that he Is not authorized to Issue
saId warrants. 1t is asserted by the plain
tiff that this claim OF the auditor is I'M
founded. and said facts constitute no
ground or excuse for a refusal or failure TO
issue to plaintiff said warrant.
The court directed issuance OF the writ.
In the opinion the court said:
"As it Is the intention of the legislature
TO limit all payments Of money for the
erection of the state capitol building to
money actually derived from the sale of
lands granted by the government, and a
provlso TO section Is prohibits an appro-
priation or payment from any other fund,
there is under the law absolutely no
obligation resting upon the state 10 pay
any sum whatever, aud those who may re-
ceive auditors warrants will be limited in
their rights to the requirements of the
proper officers to perform their duties as
defined by statute The question Is
whether the legislature has authorized the
officers having the business of erecting
capitol building on hand TO anticipate the
revenues to be derived from the sale Of
lands. An appraissment has been made
and approved by the government, which
exceeds the entire expense permitted for
the proposed building. We are bound TO
presume that the officers 10 whom the
duty Of selling these lands is committed
will perform their duty. and that funds
sufficient TO meet all demands for the
erection OF said building will come into
possession OF the stale treasurer. The
po'ntion OF such warrants as may be
issued before any funds of this
class are actually in the treasury will
be that which often occurs when
which has been provided for by law. but
which IS not yet realized. The court sees
no objection To the auditors issuing To the
relat9r the warrant prayed for provided IL
expresses uuon lis face that 10 is drawn
solely upon the state building fund, paya-
bic only a. that fund may accumulate
from the sale Of lands Let a writ issue as
prayed for.
L. +. Whiting vs.. city OF New Whatcom.
After the consolidation Of Whatcom and
Sehome Whiting claimed that he had be.
come justice OF the peace IN city of S 900
inhabitants, and demanded salary. The
court holds that there were. or might have
been, two justices ia each Of the cities 6e-
tore consolidation. aud If one was entitle
TO hold Office all four were. and as il fol.
lows that al four could not be justices
under the law consequently none we're. II
they we're not legislatea out of Office
altogether they simply remained justices
IN their original precincts, and as those
precincts did not contain more than 5eno
people, they were, OF course, not entitled
10 salary; Judgment affirmed.
John Lowell e. TX, appellant, vs.. the
House Of the Good Shepherd. respondent.
from King county; judgment reversed.
john Lowell. appellant, vs.. House II
Good Shepherd. respondent; from King
county, judgment reversed.
Angus MeKenxle, appellant. VS.. ". A
Noodin, respondent judgment reversed.