The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-05-05

m, and the little court room in the base
ment OF the city hail at that hour present.
ed an interesting spectacle. The crowd was
SO dense that every window had to be
lowered for ventilation and even then the
warmth OF the day and number OF people
IN the room made the atmosphere oppress-
i've. Within the bar groups of lawyers
stood about, waiting tc have minor cases
disposed OF or carried over.
At the attorneys tables sat Ira Bron-
son. who appears for the defendant: Ellis.
De Bruler. city attorney. who. OF course,
represents the city; and Meade Emery.
who has been specially retained by the
Western Central Labor Union 10 assist
in the prosecution. Close by his counsel
sat f.. T. Smart. an attentive listener and
observer bending for moments con-
slltation with Mr.. Bronson. or smiling
sksp,ically when witness for the prose
cutfon made some statement about terms
OF employment. Back Of the low railing
that divides the room sat a crowd made
up chiefly of workingrnen. who are natur-
atty much Interested in the Issue OF the
case.
Emery Argues Against the Demurrer.
In the foreground OF the days proceed
ings stood the brilliant and logical argu-
ment OF Meade Emery. in opposition TO
the demurrer filed by the defense.
Promptly wher the case was cali
Ell Mr.. Bronson Offered his demur-
Ter on the ground OF lack OF jurisdiction
and the failure of the complaint to state
an adequate cause OF acton. He support
80 the demurrer In a brief argument, In
which he maintained that the ordinance.
No 447A. which Mr. Smart is charged with
violating IN working his men more than
eight hours day Is unconstitutional The
statute enacted by the legislature. he said.
authorized tho city 10 impose certain I'm
itatlons with reference 10 the working
hours OF its employees. The city charter
was In conformity with that statute. aat
authorized the city council 10 enforce
those limitations by appropriate ordinance.
The ordinance was far wider than the
prov S0ns contemplated or laid down IN
the charter. and was not only unconstitu-
tjonai. bat contrary 10 common sense.
Mr. Bronson further contendea that the
contract under which Nr. Smart, or rather
the Incorporated firm Of Smart & Co is
doing the work OF regarding First avenue
j. not a contract for which the city as n
city Will pay out one cent or wjlI he he'd
liable: that II a sur should he brought
on the coutrac: Il would lie only against
the assessment district and all DANA ges
would be paid by abutting propsrty-ewn-
ey~ the city acting simply as a collecting
agency for that particular district.
Three Main Points.
II moving he court to overr7lie t6s de-
wufter. Mr. Emery took up In inverse o.
der the three main points made by Ir.
Bronson. addressing himself first 80 the
question as to whether the city % Seattle
VS. a contracting party. Citing the Ian
Euage % both the ordinance ard The com
p!3int. ~ rested this point confidently or
the decision OF the state supreme court IN
the case Of Cooper & Levy ys. TIE City o:
Seattle. well known in local circles. where
in that firm sought and recovered damages
against the city on account Of the bursting
Of a water main while the contractors wers
AZ work repavfrg Pioneer place.
The second point % which seFs argument
Yass asisire ~set3 was the conssifutio8alits
! ~ :ae ordinance. RE cited decision after de
c1Ston from the supreme court OF the l'n;f
! ei States beginning Win q reuiarka bis
! analogous case entitled The People Va
/ Henry T. Warren. a New York case. IL.
n6aaA fs1 n 6s-z4sipu OF JHdzs HaEfoTc -