The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-27
CHARTER TEST CASE.
Validity of New Law for First
class Cities Argued.
An APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN.
,utrnc.fou on Sarah y. Yesler Estate
sale Is Argtfed-Mr-s. Brown Gets
Her Freedom.

raa~e Osborn has taken under consider
.,son the questions involved in the appli-
-soou Of ". II. Reeves for writ of man
a.. 70 coYnpel the city council 10 call an
sls~t.on OF fifteen freehoiders who shall
s~saars a new charter. The case occu-
80 tho courts attention all OF the morn
- sesslon, and from $50 O'Clock IN the
ss5ernoon urtil 6. Corporation Counsel
cxa.t represented the city. while Harold
preston and j. j. AfcGilvra took care OF
80 interests Of Dir. Reeves, who really
,xnresents al the petitioners for the cleo
i'm Judge Osborn made a few remarks
:, the close Of the arguments which
seen,ed 70 Indicate that he was inclined
- think the law % 1885, under which the
rroceedings we're mad, Is constitutional.
y il Intended. however. that. no matter
no,r he decides the case. IL shall be taken
70 The supreme court in order that all
question a. 20 ths validity Of the new law
nav be disposed OF before any action is
taken on u
In h.s opening remarks Corporation
Counsel Scott stated that in the present
eass the legislature had passed a law
authorizing the election Of fifteen freehold
srs 10 frame a new charter, subject 10 the
ratification Of the people az a general cleo
ttok. In accordance with the Law a petit
t1es containing or claiming to contain the
sgE.atures OF more than - per cent OF
the qualified voters was sent to the CITY
counsel calling for an election. The cosn-
ell rejected the petition, whereupon the
case was taken 20 court. He said Il was
pureIy a question whether the fling Of
the petition compelled the council to call
AZ election. He then read TO the court
from the laws OF 1895 the new statute
under which the proceedings were being
hAa
Mr.. Scott claimed the city government.
vas one Of delegated powers and had al
ready. In accordance with the constitution.
been provided with Charter. The legis-
lature could frame a charter for the city
and no one would deny its right, but In
the present case the legislature has said
that the city itself shall make new char
ter. He said that there was no constitu-
,onsl provision for such delegation OF
authority. The law passed IN 1896. pre-
snned TO give the city power not only to
do away with its old charter. but to make
new one. He contended that as the leg
stature had once used It's power OF grant
Ing Seattle a charter its powers were al an
enc. BY the powers granted under the
new Law these fifteen freeholders would
have the power to amend and change the
old charter subject TO the ratification OF
Tire people.
I'VE contend" said Mr.. Scott. shat the
ment OF the charter otherwise than in ac-
cordance with the constitution OF the state.
The present law violates that provision,
and therefore cannot hold. There is only
one plan by which the charter may be
amended and that Is by strictly following
the provisions of the constitution, Which
provide that the proposed amendments
shall be submitted by the city council"
He claimed. as a further reason why the
law was unconstitutional. that IL was In
tended to apply TO Seattle, Tacoma and
Spokane and provided that at a Joint SEES
sion OF the .ouncil'' certain things might
b. done. How the words Joint session
could spply TO Tacoma and Spokane he
had never been able 10 find out. The law
would have been just as vicious II II had
simply been held out as a law to provide
for the amendment OF the charter of Sc
sitle. The law was held out as general.
but In reality was special.
In closing he claimed that &c was not
within the power OF the legislature to
compel the city council 10 call an election
for freehoiders. because the constitution
Is permissive In its character and the legs
iaiure cannot make that direction manda-
tory which under the constitution may be
followed within the discretion OF the city
council
A. the beginning OF the afternoon ses-
sion Mr.. Preston proceeded TO argue Ia
favor OF the granting of the writ. He
stated that the present proceedings were
friendly in nature, but were carried on
a. II hostile for the purpose OF having a
judicial determination of the question OF
Inc validity OF a freeholders committee.
u involved the constitutionality OF the
law or ls55. ard IL was the desire of all
parties % have the matter determined as
soon as possible. He believed the act 10
be good. no matter whether it referred to
81 oh ..-fz f,,~
new one. The presumption OF law would
be In favor or the validity OF the statute.
and unless the viclation OF the constitu-
ton was apparent the construction should
be in favor OF the statute. He objected
70 Mr.. seott's point as 10 ''toint session"
because there was no such case before the
court The only question OF delegation OF
pawer that arose was that OF delegation
% citizens 10 change their own charter.
IL was not a question OF delegating power
10 the committee of freeholders. for such
committee IN reality simply submitted the
charter fer ratification.
Mr. Preston then passed 10 the "onsti-
tuition as granting powers TO cities or
over N,ee9 10 frame charter. He said
ne was unable 20 find anything that would
uphold The theory that a city could frame
charter only once, The state granted
certain powers 20 cities OF over 5000 and
those powers were EVER continuing. He
S3hteBaed t19t Mf. scout hau heen pre-
sentng abstract iaw points 10 the court.
which had nothing 10 do with the case.
Mr. McGilyra spoke for a few minutes,
touching the case IN a general way and
urging the validity OF the law.
Judge Osborn stated that while from
the arguments and a reading OF the con-
sutution en- the point he failed 10 see any
serious fault IN the law. vet he would take
the matter under amusement He believed
the spirit OF the constitution was to give
cites the power 10 govern themselves. He
relieved the legislature had power 20 pass
laws giving the city power 20 amend the
CHARTER. AZ present he looked upon the
Jaw or 1885 as aiming mere especially at
amendments, Yet broad enough 20 include
an entirely new charter He said that if
,ae provisions or the constitution should
ee construed 10 provide one way. and that
alone Ter amending or changing charters.
! would pat a different phase on the val
iaiiy OF the law
Beyond rnv,varfsnrs mr. PRICES Baking