The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-23
STILL HELD By TAPE.
The New Charter Tangled Up
With Legal Snarls.
ANOTHER DAY OF puBiTANCY.
Whether There should Be Two Eiec-
tions, Point Upon Which the
Lawyers Disagree.

morning was carried, some Of them seemed
inclined 10 whoop like school boys gwen
holiday. But what all their work amount
ed to was very little. The most important
subject they handled was as 10 the extra
election and il resulted in it's being again
referred TO d committee. the majority or
whom are on record az being opposed 10
the recommendations referred 10 them 10
consider and report upon II seems proc
able therefore that their report VIII De
similar 20 that brought in yesterday morn
ing. and that the question at issue viii be
again discussed and again referred. 1t is
4 question upon which. IN a measure, the
fate OF the charter depends. ana one men,
Der suggested that until 1t was settled very
little further progress could be made. JOS
lin again detained against the continued
shifting and shufling. In the face Of diff
hculties something should always be done.
Let US do something" he almost shouted.
even If ii should afterward prove 10 De
wrong"
on Tuesday evening the Bausman and
Andrews measure was passed providing
that an election should be held under the
new charter for general municipal offices at
a time a few weeks later than the adop-
ton Of the charter. and Andrews. Bausman
and Winsor We're appointed u committee
TO whom this Was referred They reported
"a bin yesterday morning, as follows:
"All houses. boards or offices abolished or
dispensed with by this charter. together
with the emoluments thereof. shah cease
to exist from and after ;he adoption there
of, and any new offices created shall be
| filed by appointment of the mayor until
the next general election TO be held under
this charter, on the 7th day OF April, 1856.
Such appointments shall be subject TO ratif-
cation anG control by "A majority vote OF the
city council and in case the city council
shall refuse 70 ratiiy any appointment made
by the mayor. he shall al once nominate 10
[
| office
'Second-UntH the organization Of the
| city council provided for in this charter. or
| the appointment Of council by the mayor.
/ the city council Of the city Of Seattle now
existing under the old charter. and each
house of it, shall be governed by and have
| and exercise the powers granted II BY the
| charter OF the city of Seattle which was
| in force prior 10 the adoption of this char
| ter. and the officers now discharging any
| duties under the charter Of the city of Sc
| attic which shall be discharged by new Of
| ficers created by this charter, shall con-
tinue to discharge such duties until the
new officers under this charter are ap-
| pointed and qualified"
Two ELECTIONS.
| This raised anew the whole question so
| fully discussed on the previous day, as to
] whether two elections were Indispensable.
| The members OF the committee contended
| that the state law providing for a revision
| OF charters stated that IL any new Of
| fees were created by the revised charter
| the mayor should nil these offices until the
next election under such revised charter.
| They also held that under the new charter
| councilmen would be different officers from
| what they are under the old, by reason of
! the radical change from two houses to one
| and in other respects. They accordingly
| maintained that there was great danger of
| the mayors claiming the right TO appoint
| the new cOuncilmen under the state law
| until the next general municipal election
| under the new charter. which would be in
| 1898, unless special election were pro-
| vided for in the new charter. TO take place
| soon. They admitted the annoyance OF hav-
| ing new municipal election shortly after
| the adoption OF the charter and thus ne
| Cessitatng two elections close together
| but held that this was the only way TO
| avoid the dangerous legal question as to
| the rights OF the mayor. AS Bausman very
| sapiently pointed out. the lawyers in. the
/ commission had doubts. and the lawyers
| outside had doubts. and therefore the COM
| mittee thought, although opposed to the
| expense OF an extra election, that il would
| be the only safe plan.
Chairman Preston's Compliment.
| The opposition simply construed the
| state law differently. and many compli-
| ments We're paid TO Chairman Prcston's
| study OF the subject, and his eminent abil-
| ity, by those in favor Of the passage Of his
| measure on the subject. They held tn2t if
| rightly construed, the state law did not
/ give the mayor the power to appoint coun-
! cilmen, though they admitted that il did
| give such right as regards other officers
! The members OF the committee admitted
| the FEASIBILITY OF this construction OF the
| state law. at the same time they showed
| that even those who held this view were
| doubtful upon the legal technicalities of
good reason why, with an additional cleo
! ton few weeks later, with a special pro-
| vision In the new charter, the risk OF legal
| contentious hereafter should not thus be
| avoided.
There were good. sound arguments on
| both sides, and the only acTimony which
| crept into the discussion was directed to-
| ward the committee having been specially
| instructed TO report upon one bill and
/ bringing in another not in entire svm-
| pathy with their instructions This was
| answered, but the opposition on vote.
| prevailed. and a bin was passed on the
/ lines Of that brought I'm bv Chairman
! Preston, providing that the new charter
| should be submitted at the general cleo
! ton on March 3. with "a further proviso
that those who We're elected-and Of course
| they would be elected under the present
/ charter-shaN. within certain speclnca-
tons an The places Of the council under
| the uew charter.
How They stand.
/ The mere summary OF this lengthy and
| sometimes exceedingly warm discussion
/ has laft little or no space 70 he devoted 10
( IN" individual arguments OF the members
/ although in View OF future complications
! faey woH.1 be Of more than passing in
/ tereSt. How they stood upon the question
is shown IN the vote FOR the committees
I hit which was as follows Ayes-Andrews
/ tauSuan, Feuwtck. koehler Middleton
! Winsor-f. Noes-Aiien. Crane. Denny. De
Wolfe. Haulin. Joslin Stein. Trarnuar
! Chairman TreSton-g But Josltn made
I what seemed 90 ne a good point when he
/ argued in favor Cf only one election and
! rt~kirS t1e ilegaiitles. that o special cleo
/ non Npult 30 away with those nominated
/ ana lead ttem u vote against The charter
/ With all the inference they could COM
! mant IS to the danger OF the MAYORS
I interference. he dtd not think any MAYOR
in the world would dare 70 bee 50 imrorlous
( aS % ty in The face OF the peoples ev
/ pressed wishes. even Il he had the foss-.r
/ under the state statutes. Stein Observed
I You must remember thar ft v3f nor hs
the present mayor" and Josio said Dee alA
{ remember THAI ana eunhaticaffs states
+ -arv waEor ln the World" ana he h.ff
. Further tsaf the opinion ~ rhe cha.~r7sr
on che lsZRl points was sufficient Tor hin,
/ GAS |