The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-27
.SNOHON|SHTHEWINNER
The Seat of Snoh0mish County
Not to Be Removed.
DECISION BY SUPREME COURT.
Votes Should Have Been Counted Be-
fore the Result Was Announced.
>nohonfsh Celebrates the Victory
Close OF the Indian Teachers Instf-
fnfe-state Grain Commission TO Es-

a"ac-state train commission TO Es-
tabiish Headquarters at Tacoma.
Olympia. July s.-speelal.-The matter
% 1Els removal of iAe county seat OF Sno-
hoInisn county from Snon0mish to Everett
VAS decided today by the supreme court
IN the case entitled John krelseAel, re-
s2ohaenl- VS.. tie board OF county COM
hissionsrs OF Snohomish county In re-
spohse 10 a petition signed BY The re-
qs4slte number OF the qualified electors
ci SnOhomish county. the Commission
eEs caused to be submitted to the elsc-
tors OF the county at the general elsc-
ton OF 1894 a proposition 10 remove the
county seat 10 Everett. On .anvassinS
the returns the board found that $50
votes were cast for. and sos against re-
moyai. and that the total number OF votes
cast OF the proposition was 4, ,79s: neces-
sary TO removal. SIS. The board there
upon declared Everett the county seat
Il also appears from the record that
after examining the certificate Of the
county eanvassing board the commission
ers refused 10 consider and rejected the
returns from the precincts Of Port Gard
ner and South Snohomish on the ground
that the returns bore evidences OF eras~
ures and alterations, and. appeared 20
be forgeries
Respondent brought this aeti3n TO re-
strain ard enjoin defendants from re-
moving the county offices, on the ground
that the petition upon which he COM
missioners submitted the proposition was
not signed by the REQ iisite number OF
electors; thai the question of -smoval
was not properly submitted for the rea-
son that no separate ballots or ballot
boxes were prepared for votes on the
question OF removal: that the commits
sloners never canvassed the votes cast on
the question. bu. rraudulsntly declared
that more than three-fifths of the votes
cast favored removal; that the law con-
cerning removal Is unconstitutional. and
that the change would result n unnec-
essary and illegal expenditure OF public
moneys. Upon the fling OF the complaint
and on the hearing the defendants Gb-
tected TO the proceeding. on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction: that
the complaint failed 10 state sufficient
facts. and that the plaintiffs had no ls-
gal right to maintain the action. These
objections were orerruied, and a tempo
rary injunction granted and an appeal
taken.
IT becomes necessary TO determine. says
the supreme court. whether upon the
facts presented by the record the court
below was warranted in awarding the
preliminary Injunction. We think 1t may
be stated as a general proposition that
every citizen has n right to be protected
against the consequences OF Illegal acts
IL the commissioners were not authorized
by the facts 10 declare the removal, we
must conclude that the respondent was
entitled 10 be relieved In some manner
from the injurious consequences. In
R.ckey vs. Williams this court affirmed
the judgment Of the lower court eai0iu-
Ing the removal of the county seat of
Stevens cousty on the ground that the
board acted upon an insufficient petition.
and also that a county officer whose Office
was required by law TO he kept at the
county seat might maintain 4 suit 20 On
join removal In this case the petition
seems 10 have been sufficient, but II is
alleged in the complaint and proved by
the evidence that the commissioners never
received. compared or canvassed the re-
turns upon removal. The proof fairly
shows that neither the returns nor the
poll books were ever in possession of the
commissioners. II is claimed. however.
that a majority Of the board were present
AZ the canvass by the county canvassing
board. OF which the chairman OF the
county commissioners was an ex-officio
member and thereby ascertained the re-
suit There was no session OF the COM
mlssioners during The time the canvass
ing hoard was I'm session. The orders
were PREPARED and entered on the records
as expeditiously ss possible, with the evil
dent intent that no ono should interfere
20 prevent removal The records and evi-
fence show that the number Of legal
votes east upon the proposition was not
ascertainea hy the board. and in that
matter they were vested with no discre-
tlonary or arbitrary powers. They were
commanded 20 ascertain from the returns
whether sufficient number OF votes ha !
teen cast to authorize removal. and not
merely 70 declare that the required num-
her had been cast.
The result of the election not having
been ascertainei. the pretended canvass
ny the board is irregular and void. ana
the effect ~ ne election is neither great
er nor less than II TO election had been
held. That county officer or taxpayer
may maintain an action "a enioi1 rc-
moval vas determined affirmatIveIv bv
tse supreme court IN Ri-key vs. VIII
iams The opinion concludes by the stase-
nent that the supreme court is of the
opinion that the lower court properly In
terfe-ei 20 prevent me consunmatton ~
the wrong that would have resulted from,
the Illegal acts of the majority ~ tas
board of county commissioners. 0pi uto1
by Anders signed ~ Hoyt and Scott
Another phase cf the county seat con-
test developed in fhe case Of the state
" Whitney. wherein the supreme -our,
holds thar the canvasslnE board has no
right % canvess the votes on the quss-
;fo1 ~ removal
Also l.swry. appellant, rs. hoard ot
county commissioners, affirmed
Judge Sapn. who was attorney for Sno-
! hornish IN the county seat cases. upon
being shown 49, foregoing synopsis Of the
decision IN che Kr3escAel case. stated tina,
although x ala rot concluS.vely appear "a
~ fnal determination of the question
/, vas practically such The contents m
% the Everett attorneys" he sa4d. ''vsas
that the courts hai 10 jurisdiction what
ever % the question, and the decision
completely d!sro<ss of that contention. -
lie gave - as his opinion that y there
we're any further proceedings in TIE case
their s>ope weu}d no doubt De found ~
- l.ratn4 hy re decisions In these cases
which have now been passed u2on 50 thar
sor al prsc'iesl purposes the question is
RON settled.
y VII - gratifying 20 consumers - note
.Azs the quality of the hakfnE 0oxYfrr