The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-21
THE WRIT is QUASHED
rouucil's Power to Try Masel
Is Confirmed.
o, AXE WINS BALLARD CONTEST.
a.. Ts Awarded Seat in Council-Is
Wellington IN King Countys-
Two Chinese Contrabands.

-ns vrit o. prohibition 20 restrain the
- a,unon from proceeding with the
80 a. Fire Commissioner George T.
.,.s.l was dealea by Judge Lengthy ia
= suoeri0r court yesterday, and the
1.,,ciI can now carry out the proc eediuxs
-ssSo0f further legal hindnauce. The
.,,x was represented BY Corporation
.--,nssl Scott ard Mr. Masei by John
gllsy.
ne demurrer 70 the writ contended
-, the charter provided that the mayor
- mower 10 suspend a commissioner
80 me council power 70 try him on
.ss,vas preferred. The law provided an
~Asar,ste remedy oy writ OF review
80 on the acI ion OF prohibition such
y mis- gas the court would not consider
-. erfHciency az the charges, but ascer-
s~tr the council had Jurisdiction OF
- subfect matter and OF the person.
r.. charges themselves showed that Ma
a. had acted with full knowledge OF the
s,e.s set forth Ia the charges and was
.-~.rapefent. The fire commission had
s.,n control over the department and IL
50 IFS duty to see that II was kept In
,raser condition and supplied with proper
naserial, although the board OF public
.orks was the exclusive purchasing
.zsnf OF the city.
ur Wiley held fi1at writ OF prohibition
vas the only remedy open TO Mr.. Masel
+ the present case. lie assumed that
,bs council was determined 10 find Mr.
u,sel guilty and said that his term of
osses might expire before the case was
srauy passed upon by the supreme court.
Ts held also that T. was an impossible
Inv for Mr. Masel TO defraud the city.
a. even II he did vote for the Baker cot
ton fabric hose. mis- vote did nothing to-
gard compelling the city To purchase.
as the board OF public works was the
purchasing agent Of the city. There
sore no offense that the court could take
eognizance Of had been committed. and
.hsrefore there was nothing TO try. The
loara OF FIRE commissioners was u mere
ornamental body with but small powers.
judge Langley in deciding the case
sad that the principal charge against
Nass was that ne was incompetent by
reason Of the fact that he voted for
base which had been tried and found 10
h. mat for use. lie held that The fire
commission has a high degree of re-
sponslpiity and was a great deal more
,ban an ornamental body. Masel. If he
voted for the hose knowing that Il was
a. inferior quality was either incompe-
tent or Indifferent Has the joint city
council the power to try him for these
aets? Judge Langley held that il had.
Il may he necessary in doing this 10 more
explicitly state the charge. If he council
has jurisdiction over the subject natter.
1, has the right 10 try st. Ii has the
came power to try that this court has,
and. II he is found gully, to remove him
from Office or inhict other punishment.
THE only Question is as TO the juris-
si-tion. and think the council has turis-
dction. The peremptory writ viii there
fore be dismissed and the demurrer sus-
talned." concluded Judge Langley.
Attorney Wiley then arose and gave
notice that he would appeal tne case to
lie supreme court.