The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-29
THE SNOHOMISH SEAT.
Full Text of the Decision of the
Supreme Court.
THE VOTE NOT CANvASsEo.
Matters Are I'm the Same Position, the
Court says, as II No Election
Had Been Held.

Olympia, July E-special Following is
the text of the decision OF the supreme
court in the Snohomish county seat case.
entitled: John krieschel, respondent.
VS. the board of county commissioners OF
Snohomish county. Wash. and Quinton
Z. Frfars and Thomas Moran. men,
bers of said board, and W. w. Mish, as
county treasurer. appellants. Peter
Leaue et al. public officers of Snohomlsh
county, Wash, defendants"
In response to petition purporting TO
be signed by the requisite number OF
qualified electors OF Snohomish county.
the board of county commissioners Of
that county caused TO be submitted to he
electors OF the county, at the general cleo
ton held in November 1894, a proposition
to remove the county seat from the city
Of Snohomish to the city OF Everett.
After the election had been held, and On
December Is, 1894. the commissioners
caused TO be spread upon their records
statement in substance that a meeting OF
the board of county commissioners of
Snohomish county was duly and regularly
called TO assemble at the court house m
the city OF Snohomisn in said county on
December is. 1894, that the returns of tie
general election held in said county on
the 9Th day of November, 1894. having
been received. the board duly proceeded
10 canvass and compare the same, and 10
ascertain the result OF said election on
the question of the removal Of the county
seat. and continued i'm session for the pur-
pose of such canvass. comparison and
ascertainment continuously. adjourning
from time 10 time as necessary. that
said board. having duly canvassed. COM
pared and ascertained the result OF said
election. as shown by the returns from
the voting precincts of the county, upon
the question whether the county seat
u Nta % Crasa
homish to the city of Everett, do find as
the result of said canvass. comparison
and entertainment, that ESQ votes were
cast for ard 1905 against removal, and
that the total number Of votes cast upon
the proposition was 1856; necessary to re-
moval, ISIS. Their record further states
that the board thereupon declared the
city of Everett to be the county seat of
Snohomish county from and after Janu-
airy 81 1895; that notice of the result OF
said election be given by posting notices
thereof In all the election precincts OF said
county, and that the county ofhcers
whose Offices are required by law TO be
kept at the county seat, remove their re-
spective Offices, files, records. Office fix
lures and furniture. and all public prop
erty pertaining to their respective offices,
TO the city of Everett, from, on and after
said January II. 1895. 1t also appears from
their record that, after examining the
CpfilNCatt OF tne county 5'i1S
board the county commissioners, by
majority vote CMr Evans voting cont-a),
refused to consider, and rejected. the re-
turns from the precincts of Port Gardner
and South Snohomsh, on the ground that
the returns from those precincts bore ii
dence OF erasures and alterations on their
face. and appeared to be forgeries, and
that the returns of those precincts We're
In such a condition that it was Impossible
10 determine the correct vote cast in said
precincts from said returns.
The respondent, who became one OF the
commissioners of Snohomish county on or
about January Is, 1855. and who therefore
was and still is resident and taxpayer
OF said county, brought this action to re-
strain and enjoin the defendants. who
were county officers, from removing their
respective offices, or the files, papers AMI
property pertaining thereto, from the city
of Snohomlsh TO the city of Everett IN
pursuance OF the declaration and order of
the board of county commissioners.
The grounds upon which he asked tire
interposition of the court were, that the
petition upon which the county commits
sioners submitted the proposition of re-
moval to the electors of the county WIS
not signed by the requisite number OF the
qualified electors, and was fraudulent ard
illegal: that the question OF removal was
not properly submitted. for the reason
that no separate ballots or ballot boxes
were prepared for the votes upon tho
question OF removing the county seat:
that the board of commissioners never can
vassed the votes cast on the question or
removal and never ascertained the result
of the election on that question from the
returns from the various election pre-
cIncts. but frauduiently. and in violation
OF law and contrary to their knowledge
of the fact declared that more than
three-ffths OF the votes cast upon tae
pi oposition were in favor of removing the
county seat from Snohomish 10 Everett:
that the law concerning the removal OF
county seats under and by virtue Of
which the commissioners submitted the
proposition to the voters of the county. Is
unconstitutional. imperative and void,
and that the removal of the county Of
fees TO the city OF Everett VIII result in
an unnecessary and Illegal expenditure of
the public moneys. and illegally and I'M
Justly cause the respondent and all other
taxnavers of the county to pay larger
amount OF taxes than they justly ougnt
to pay.
ITpon the filing of the complaint a tenn
rorary restraining order was issued, and
thereafter the cause was set down Tor
hearing upon plaintiffs motion for tenn
norarv Injunction On the day fixed ICr
the hearing the defendants appeared and
Objected TO the proceeding on several
grounds. among which were that the
court had no jurisdiction OF the suhiesr
matter of this action: that the complaint
failed 70 state sufficient facts to entitle
the plaintiff TO the relief demanded. and
that the plaintiff had no legal right or
capacity 10 maintain the action. Those
objections were overruled by the court,
and the apnlication for a preliminary IN
junction was heard unon afiidavtts sub
mitted by the respective parties. After
argument by the respective counsel, and
due consideration by the court. a tenn
porarv Injunction was ordered. TO reverse
which order this appeal is prosecuted.
II is claimed by the learned counsel Tor
appellants that under the law Of this
state as announced in parmeter ".
Bourne, S Wash. a., the court below had
no jurisdiction OF the subject matter OF
this controversy. and Il was therefore or
ror TO entertain and consider plaintiffs
complaint. The case CT Permetcr rs.
Bourne involved the removal OF the
county seat OF Pacific county and IL was
therein sought 20 restrain transfer 81
the county offices from Oysterville 10
South BEND. on the alleged ground that
fraud had been committed IN the count
ing or the votes by the Judges OF election
and in the issuing OF returns Of election
10 the board 81 county commissioners It
was not claimed or pretended that the
commissioners themselves did not hon
estlv and faithfully discharge the trust
iu,posed up0n them by law. From the ie-
turns OF the election and the poil boogs
Of the several precincts OF the county,
they ascartained and declared the rpsalt
OF the election on the proposition Of re
T4oval and this court was constrained II
hold. under the circumstances. that IN cir
determination Of the result % the ell
I. a.