The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-05-30
Mr. FAWCETT WINS.
Superior Court Not Empowered
to Decide Contests.
a BIO BEND FARMER xILlGo.


CONSTITUTION and laws OK this state The
superior court has no Jurisdiction to en-
terrain proceedings to contest elections
Tor city osnces IN cities Of the frss class
This was the only question involved in
the case OF Angelo v. Favcett. petition
CT. vs.. superior court Of Pierce county.
respondent. an opinion in Which case ~xs
HE'D today. issuing q permanent writ OF
prohibition II was commended by re-
spcndent here that section q. article 4.
OF sne constitution. which provides that
tne superior court shall have original
Jurisdiction In cases In equity and for
SUCH special cases a. ere no, otherwise
provided for. and that IL shall have orig
maj jurisdiction In cases IN which Sur,s-
oicuoo shan not have been By law vested
exclusively in some other court. Il sum
eienr TO give the court Jurisdiction in this
case, out the supreme court thinks this
contention was decided adversely IN re-
spondenrs interest In Parmen,er y.
Bourne. Washington Is; that the Almost
universal rule 10 that when the Iesisla-
tuls mas acted and has prescribed sub
!sSes oh contest such subjects are to tho
exclusion Of others. REGARDING the pro-
vision OF section TO- article II, vestinx cit-
ies o. 0"1 Inhabitants with the author
~ 70 iegisiate upon local matters, the
,apme court says the fact must not he
lost sight Of that the elementary nron,.
s',ion IN this regard IS tina, munie,n.i
corporations have only mowers vb,ch
are specially conferred by the iegislature-
4he power TO provide q tribunal ara
ciotae II with authority to decide elec-
lion cases was not specially conferred NV
me legislature. nor does it appear to be
.upueo oy the constitution or by act of
the legislature In the former case De-
ctded by the supreme court n was hs,a
tnae the section Of the city charter of T,a
coma declaring no person entitled to vote
unless qualified and registered was void
ior the reason that there was no state
Jaw recurring registration at elections
OF tnis character. and the same court now
.,o'os ,hAt the subject of registration fo-
the purposes OF purifying elections ia "a
merely purely munIcipaI rer,,i.t5or
rather than empowering courts with a,-
monty 10 contest elections. The author
itS conferred upon superior courts. which
are state officers. even coucedinr ,haf
the state could create a tribunal clotbad
Win me power claimed for the court IN
.ni, ease must be created by higher
authority than the local legislature Of ~.
city. 1t must be conceded. saws the o,,n~
ION, tnal iaasmuch as there is no manner
prescribed by the legislature for trx,n~
eoAAssts IN cases OF municipal Officers
inc manner must be prescribed. II tried
at al. BY the municipality. Arain- 10
sho" the faliacy Of this proposition n
one eihy having 2oooo inhabitants can
create tribunal and enact modes for
trial OF contested cases other ci,ie. ~
the same class in the state must be con-
ceoso the same powers and the resulf
would De. even conceding that the mower
was conferred in all cases unon the .u-
perior Judge. that the method prescribed
py one city would be different from that
VI otner ciues' and there would be pre-
sented the spectacle Of one officer having
MS case tried under a different form ~
pracuce from those applied to other orr
GERS IN the same kind OF case in another
part OF the state.
The opinion is BY Justice Dunbar. con-
CURED in by Scott, Gordon and Ander.
Chief Justice Hoyt, dissenting. holds mar
tne powers OF cities of over % 90 to frame
their own charters is derived from The
constitution. not from the act of the irg-
isiature passed in pursuance thereof: that
hereunder this power Is plenary. excent
as restricted by the constitution itself or
oy general act OF the legislature. For
tnat reason It had full power to provide
for a contest
The supreme court affirmed the judy
ment In the case OF the state. resnond-
ent. VS. Charles McGonlgle. anneiIan,
wherein appellant vas found guilty az
murder IN the second degree Tor ACCT
dentaily killing hts own father while Mt
tempting TO kill one Eaves in yakima
county In August, 1885
amanda c. Churchill. appellant. Va.
Joseph Stephenson. respondent. from
Yakima: affirmed
Walter Christian, Of counsel for Mr. Orr
stated tonight that the election contest
would be pressed TO an issue through an
inquiry quo warranto. Said he: ..rha
court has only decided n technical oues-
ton. that OF the jurisdiction OF the ,owe,
court 10 count the ballots under thu ne-
cuiiar proceeding OF a contest which xas
begun because II offered, In nv i,n,x-
ment, speedy and expeditions settlemen,
OF the issues in the case. The jurisdiction
OF the lower court in the subject rnatt.r
IN the complaint, IL called to It's att.n-
tion through inquiry quo warranto has
NOT oeen adjudicated by the higher court
in its decision
The papers in a new suit under the ono
warranto proceedings were prepared To-
day by Mr.. Orr's attorneys and were
served tonight on Mayor Fawcett by Dep
uty Sheriff W. w. Sprsgue. The case in
entitled the State OF Washington on the
relation OF Edward s. Orr versus A Y.
Fawcetr- Practically the same allexa-
tons as were Incorporated IN the COM
paint In the first case are contained in
the new suit. The difference IS that IN.
power OF the state IS invoked In order 10
determine definitely the number OF bal
lots cast for the two candidates ana which
Is entitled to the office. NJ. Orr ara III.
attorneys are confident that the baro,s
VIII yet be counted The ex-mayor said
tonight that II, after the votes vera
counted under the direction OF the court
II was found that Mayor Fawcett had re-
ceived one more vote than himself. hs
would cheerfully recognize his right TO m.
office