The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-29

price or the COUNTY commissioners. re-
gardiess OF the law and the constitution
OF the state. Although pcliticai cues
ton. II 10 nevertheless one over which
even the legislature has not aosolote ana
unlimited control. for ire power IL plEsiiiy
limited by our constitution. In some OF
the states the legislature seems 10 pos
sess practically unrestricted power as 10
the removal and location OF county seats,
and. under such circumstances, the cou-ts
hold, and not without reason, that wners
IL has designated some body or tribunal
20 determine the o,eStior OF removal. the
determination OF such tribunal Is anal aad
conclusive. But we have heen referred 10
no case, ard have found none in which II
has been held that a board OF county aola-
mfssioners 10 whom the law csnndes ce
duty OF sscertaining and declaring the re-
suit OF an election upon proroslaoh 70
remove a county seat, can Snaliy and
conclusively determine the question in a
manner contrary TO, or different from.
that prescribed by law. IN THIS state II
is the will OF the qualified electors or
county, as expressed by their ballots. an
that only, which authorizes the removh
or relocation OF county seat Neitner
the legislature nor the county commits
sioners. who are its agents, can effect
removal in any other way than by SUD-
mission TO . popular vote. The only power
the commissioners have with respect 10
the matter Is the power TO submit TIE
question to a vote of the people, ana 10
ascertain, declare and publish the result
OF the election thereon. When tney nave
submitted the proposition TO the electors
and have ascertained from the returns
that three-fifths OF all the votes cast upon
the proposition are in favor OF removal
It is their duty to give the proper notice
and declare the county seat to be at the
place so selected from and after specf-
fled date. not more than ninety DAYS
after the election. See Genl Stats, title
s., chap. 3.
An examination OF the law concerning
the removal of county seats will disclose
the fact that the legislature did not IN
tend to clothe the several boards OF
county commissioners In this state with
arbitrary power TO determine this ques-
ton. for IL provided that, when the re-
turns have been received and compared,
and the results ascertained by the board,
IL three-ffths of the legal votes cast by
those voting on the proposition are In ia
vor OF any particular place. the boari
must give notice of the result by posting
notice thereof in all the election precincts
in the county" The statute also provides
that the place selected TO be the county
seat OF the county must be so declared m
the notice mentioned in the section when
we have just quoted; but this language
evidently does not mean that the place
selected by the board shall be the county
seat, but the place selected by the people
of the county, and dsclared so selected by
the board.
The statute upon the subject is In per-
feet accord with the constitution, for that
instrument declares that no county seat
shall he removed unless three-hfths or
the qualified electors of the county vot-
ing on the proposition at general cleo
ton. shall vote in favor of such removal
and three-fifths of all the votes cast upon
the proposition shall be required to relo-
cate a county seat" Const., Art. XI,
sec. 2.
While the removal of a county seat
necessarily involves the exercise of politi-
cal or legislative power, Ii Is thus seen
that the people. the source of all politi-
cal power. have not seen fit to leave the
matter OF removal TO the unrestricted
will of the legislature. And although the
legislature has delegated certain powers
TO the county commissioners. it has taken
care to designate the character OF their
duties and the manner of discharging
them. What. then, would be the conse-
quence should board of county commits
sioners in a given case declare a county
seat removed without first ascertaining
whether or not the legal and constitu-
tional number of votes had been cast in
declaration effect a removal in spite CT
the contrary declaration of the const'tu-
ton and the law? The contention of ap-
pellants is in effect that IL would, but we
think their position is untenable. II the
county commissioners can cause the We
moval of a county seat by mere dec1ara-
ton. unwarranted by the law or the facts
OF the case then il was the extreme OF
folly on the part OF the trainers of the
constitution to incorporate into the funda-
mental law the provision above quoted.
and the legislature did vain and usel eSs
thing when II enacted law for their
guidance. If there is no legal remedy Ior
such a wrong II were far better II this
question had been left to their uncon-
trolled discretion.
But since the law is otherwise. IT be-
comes necessary to determine whether.
upon the facts presented by the record,
the court below was warranted in award
ing the preliminary Injunction or winch
apnelIants complain. We think IL may be
stated as a general proposition that eVcry
citizen has a right to he protected against
the consequences OF the illegal acts or all
persons. IT. therefore. the board OF COM
rnissioners were not authorized, In this
instance, by the facts and the law 10 de-
clare that the city of Everett had been
selected as the county seat OF Snohomisf
county. we must conclude that the re-
snondent was entitled 10 he relieved IN
some manner or form OF action, from any
Injurious consequences which wouli re-
suit to him from the remoyai OF 'he
county seat to that place.
In hickey VS.. williams, Wash, 40,
this court affirmed the judgment OF the
lower court enioining tho removal or tho
county seat Of Stevens county, on me
ground that the board Of county commits
sIoners acted upon an insufficient petition
In submitting the question 10 a popular
vote. and It was also held IN that Ease
that a couuty officer whose ofice was re-
ouired bv law to he kept at the county
seat might maintain on action 10 enjoin
IN Illegal removal thereof, that Is, re-
moval attempted be contaminated oy
an Illegal and void election.
In this case, the petition upon which the
commissioners acted seems 10 nave been
sufficient At least, the trlal court so CON
Guided and we see nothing IN the recofd
Indicating error in that regard. But II ia
ALLEGED in effect I'm the complaint. AMI
proved bv the evidence. that the board OF
rountv commissioners never received
compared or canvnssed the returns or the
election unon the question OF the removal
OF the county seat. The PROOF falriy
shows that neither the returns nor the
polI books were ever in the possession or
the board Of commissioners. IL rs Claimed,
however. that a majority OF the board
were present at the canvass OF the cleo
zion returns made ny the county canvass
ing board. OF which the chairman OF the
hoard of county commissioners was. eX
offscio. a member. and. nv that means a.
rertained the result OF the election on the
proposition ~ removal. But there was no
session Of the hoard of commissioners
during the time the county cailVaSs'i,s
hoard was in session. and no such meet
-. 1l,,1a how taer held unless the chair