The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-11-29

AT the city hall certain members OF the city
government are inclined TO the opinion that
II would have been better to have had the
contractors bring mandamus proceedings
against the board. This would have put
the onus If the initiative on the contractors
and. it Is contended. would have brought
into issue the question of the legality of the
bid OF Gahar & Byrne and the validity of
the ordnance. 1t Is conterded in some quar-
ters that under the Moran suit the validity
OF the ordinance will not be tested and that
any opinion the courts may offer on that
score might. in a subsequent suit to re-
strain the payment OF the warrants he held
as "dicta." Those who take this position
claim that the board cannot plead the or
dinance passed by the council directing
them 10 enter into contract with Gahan
K Byrne.
on the other hand. certain legal author-
ties hold the complaint filed by Mr. Moran
brings the whole question before the court
and they cite a paragraph in the prayer of
the complaint in which the court is asked
10 adiudge the ordinance Illegal.
II. r. elise. who represents the firm OF
Gahan & Byrue. said yesterday that the
matter had now assumed the turn his eli
ents had wished I'VE dii not desire 10
have this contract entered into without the
hearty cooperation and good viii of the
municipal authorities. That in the opinion
az the matter. We would not bring man
damus suit for this reason"
History of the Case.
The Moran complaint. which was drawn
by the firm Of Preston. Carr Il Gilman is
a somewhat lengthy document and cor
tains history of the entire proceedings of
the city authorities since the Inception OF
the Cedar river plan, Mr. Moran first
states that he is citizen and taxpayer q
Seattle. The complaint then rccites the or
ulEanca voted ~ by the PEOPLE Of SeattIe.
No. 1850 and the subsequent proceedings of
the council The provisions Of the city
charfef prescribing The course to he pur-
suft aA the board - public works IN alver-
t.siuS tvr bids for puzzle works ana the ie..
uhE oi contracts are given ~ detail as far
rs trey affect the Cedar river contract
Finally tae text 4 the Advertisements Of
{Ie board calling Tor bids for the Cedar
river system - given and the substance. OF
fHe ilt DleG ~ s5aGau a Byrue including
we pToFlsa concerning the payment OF in
itF'St on the warrants issued in navEuepf
for the work
NJ Moran makes he claim in h{s ooro-
riaint saa{ the notifications made fv me
said proposed contract are i'm mr.
ta1t aru material changes and departures
from 'he terms stated N TIE notice calling
i2f o.ts ans specifications and Il was be-
cause ~ tAe oF3s ma provisions % ordinance
30 -sti and IN ~eit specifications AMI no
tiHe c1Hog ftr as. which are modified l,v
Tn later ordinance that uo other b1 sr
bids were received by ths board ,f uuhlic
ATss ia answer to sad al FIR h.sS. and
81 SAD ordinance No @"sf ana SAID soeclfioa-
tNtl~ fFtt siti call for bids had contained
t-t iN@olt cati%os made }4y s9iI te- o-tlia-
atFe- 81 lSast ure h.t f3r thr construction
Vt t-}f extension - - t& water works evs-
lem for "a bower s.3m Tran Mas ia nv .he
Sari ttaeaH s Eyrnc Wouls hAy.. heeH re-
fe'f"d ~ t6e @oaFd ~ puhAc works az me
Cfff cf seattle Ia answer 10 said cali for
bids"
That ltffIr