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 hall 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 Cypress
i've. Within the bar groups of lawyers
stood about, waiting to have minor cases
disposed OF or carried over.
At the attorneys tables sat Ira Bron-
son, who appears for the defendant: Ellis
De Bruer. 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 L. T. Smart. an attentive listener and
observer. bending for moments con-
sultation with Mr.. Bronson. or smiling
skeptically when witness for The prose-
cution made some statement about terms
Of employment. Back OF the low railing
that divides the room sat crowd made
up chiefly OF workingmen. who are natur-
ally 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 when the case was call
Ell Mr. Bronson offered his demur-
rer on the ground of lack OF jurisdiction
and the failure OF the complaint TO state
an adequate cause Of acton. He support
ed the demurrer In brief argument, In
which he maintained that the ordinance.
No. Al, 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 the city to impose certain I'm
itati0ns with reference 10 the working
hours OF It's employees. The city charter
was m conformity with that statute. and
authorized the city council 10 enforce
those limitations by appropriate ordinance.
The ordinance was far wider than the
provisions contemplated or laid down I'm
the charter. and was not only nnconstitu-
tonal. but contrary to common sense.
Mr. Bronson further contended that the
contract under which Mr.. Smart. or rather
the Incorporated firm OF Smart & Co IL
doing the work OF regarding First avenue
Is not contract for which the city as a
city viii pay out one cent or viii be held
liable; that II A suit should be brought
or the contract Il would lie only against
the assessment district and ali damages
would Ike paid by abutting property-own-
ers. the city acting simply as a collecting
agency Tor that particular district.
Three Main Points.
T., moving the court to override the g.
rrurrer. Mr.. Emery took up In inverse or
der the three main points made by Nh
Bronson. addressing himself first to the
question as to whether the city OF Seattle
Vas a contracting party Citing the Ian
gj8ge OF both the ordinance and the con-
plant he rested this point confidently On
ina decision OF the state supreme court IN
the case OF Cooper & Levy vs.. The City cf
Seattle. well known In local circles. where
II that firm sougEt ard recovered damages
against The city on &ceount % the bursting
OF a water main while the contractors were
AZ work repairing Pioneer place.
TIE SECOND point 70 which his arzume ?
uas addressed was the cons:ifuiioBaiity
OF tle ordinance He cited decision after de-
s-sSioa from the supreme court of the tnI;-
e3 States. beginning with a ren%srka bly,
analogous case entitled The People vs.
Henry j. Warren New York case. He
GAeA also . decision O. Judge Haacog4- 80