The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-30
THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
Petition For Charter Election Iesier
Ax.uIa franchise Once Moro Up.

Petition For Charter Election - ester
Avenue Franchise Once More Up.
In the board OF aldermen last night the
much talked of petition for an election or
fifteen freeholders to frame a new charter
was presented. In the preamble Il was
claimed that there were 3.042 signatures
of taxpayers, or more than one-fourth or
the voters of the city, and complied with
the recent law relative TO new charters or
cities OF the first class. Accompanying
the petition was a joint resolution IN
which grave doubts were expressed as to
the constitutiouality OF the law and the
cali made upon the corporation counsel
FOR written opinion within one week.
elise then spoke in favor OF granting
the petition saying that he did not de
| sire 70 bubble about the number OF men
who had signed II was a large. respect
able petition. lie desired to see the SUI
preme court Judge the matter. and
| thought by quick action test case could
be brought and he decided within thirty
days He thought the corporation counsel
could devise a way 10 bring the matter
before the supreme court
I4ovejoy said he thought the people and
council should know Il the petition was
an honest one. and moved that II be re-
ferred 10 the city clerk to see If the sign
| ers were citizens.
Compton gave the second for the reso-
luton calling for an opinion from the
! corporation counsel. Sweeney said the
| easiest way. according TO the corporation
| counsel to settle the matter was TO re-
ject the petition and then mandamus pro-
| ceedings would be instituted.
| on the second reading the joint resolu-
| ton was adopted by the following vote:
! In favor-Anderson. elise. Compton, Love
! joy Daulton, Sweeney. Miller. Against
| Jordan.
| Sweeney. chairman Of the railroad com
| hn
matter Of granting an extension of time
| TO the Seattle City Railway Company In
which 10 doubie-track Yesler avenue and
| Jackson street, reported an ordinance
| favoring the granting of the time and fur
| Their providing for the repeal without re-
| course of all the company's rights under
| the two ordinances under which the road
| now operates II the double track is not
! pat IN within one year The ordinance is
! very sweeping. and was considered strin-
! gent IN the extreme. Before the ordi-
1 nance was introduced an opinion from
| Corporation Counsel Scott was read. lie
| saws that the Jackson street franchise
was granted In 1870 70 the Lake Washing
! ton cable Railroad Company. and the
| Yesler avenue franchise In 1857 "a the Sc
| attic Construction Company. which has
| been succeeded by the Lake Washington
| Cable Railroad Company and the Seattle
! CITY Railway Company is the successor
/ Ia
| Company. Tho question 'propouDde1 was:
| Is the last named company possessed Of
! any rights under the ordinance IN ai-
| di;ipn 10 the rights granted under the
| franchise 10 the Seattle Construction
! Company The opinion said that the
! ordinances dli not necessarily conflict
! and that the second did not cover the
/ territory included Ia the first. The option
| did not allow the company 20 refuse at
/ It's discretion 20 huild double track but
! the question as 20 whether Il should he
| compelled 20 build a double track de-
/ pended on the fact whether the business
( ana earnings would Justify II. The
/ opinion concluded.
II think the two ordinances may be
/ considered 20 he I'm force In all az their
/ provisions as II IS rule Of law that re-
! pcals by Implication are not favored nv
! the courts. n the latter ordinance IS re-
! pusrant - the terms Of the former
/ there Is repeal ny Implication The inten-
/ tiou ~ repeal will nos be presumed nor
/ the fact II repeal admitted. unl.ss incon-
| s'sfency Is unavoidable. and then only %
/ the extent 81 the repuEnaucy. Neither
! can II he maintained that The provision
/ for The touhie-trae king 81 said streets IN
/ ordinance No. i,2l7 amends that portion
/ 9f Ordinance No SO which provides that
/ me company shah douhle-track It's road
( "Ae1 the business and earnings Of the
/ road may Justify H."
I Corporation Counsel Scott said IN ex-
/ p!aration that under she ordnance hfl,~
I considered 4 me railroad Ola not accent
! IN" ordnance within twenty DAYS the
present city laws We're SIN ln eTert. u
/ me roa i Old a-rept &. and failed 10 com
! ply with it> prov s3oas. the franchises
I wore forfeited without notice ar the end
/ % che year
a T. Warner was allowed 20 sneak In
behalf ~ the people ~ NcsIer avenue.