The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-12-05
Contract Of Purchase Executed
BY Board Of Public Works.
OPPOSED BY MR.. THOMSON.
President OF the Hoard Inclined to
FIND Technical objections to the
sale-corporation Counsel Hum-
phrey says the Deal Il Legni-
AccordinG 10 Contract, the city
rncurs No General Liability.

liz works. signed the contract of purchase
OF woodland park late yesterday AFTER
noon, after rather interesting session OF
the board, and after Gen. Carr had mace
strong protest against the eAeeu' 70 ~, =.
the contract. The terms Of the sale OF the
mark. as found in the instruments exc
cuted by Mr.. Thomson. by direction Of the
board or public works, provide that the
city shall. on acceptance OF the deed 10 IN me
park. pay. 5000, that on January !, ls u,
the first 81 every january thereafter, un-
iii ths remainder shall have been paid, the
city shall pay $4,000. with interest on me
deferred payments at the rate or per
s siasoo5 Ger "nnam' ''e p'l''a.s 80 ~, 49, :
resolution setting forth the .ac5 ,nat t the
park ana had directed the board OF pubic
works to execute the contract of purchase,
was presented to the board ~ o Serp rea
rssenting Mrs. Phinney; Gen. Ca&r. repre-
senting Robert Abrams, who ATTEMPTED in
the superior Gosrt to prevent the pursn 1ans
wcre present at the meeting OF the board
Mr.. Thomson asked the corporation coun-
sci whether the board was Justified under
chase. suppose it Is held by the courts"
Mr.. Thomson said. shat the ordinance. is
Illegal? Have we any recourse for the
$500 e Re, Ss P gssa1 Mrs PAinney on accept
Mr.. Humphrey, replying, stated that the
council had directed the purchase of the
park by ordinance. and that the board vas va,
lowing the terms Of the ordinance. which
Judge Moore had held to be legal and
An Emphatic Protest.
Gen. Carr made verbal but none the
less emphatic protest against the execu-
ton OF the contract He appeared to In
form the board. he said, that suit was
a.. lad frr md
faith, 70 prevent the fulfillment of the con-
tract Of purchase, and that although the
SUPERIOR court had decided aginst the plain-
to the supreme court. He claimed that in
view OF the circumstances the board should
not execute the contract until hnal ad-
Indication OF the question raised before
Iuuge Moore had been had.
Mr.. Howe replied to Gen. Carr, saying:
'Tne only question involved In this matter
is whether the ordinance and purchase
the city. Judge Moore held that this was
not the case. This is the end OF the mat
ter. The board can now with perfect safe
ty enter into this contract, and hope 1t
will do so and end the matter"
Mr. Howe read from the. contract to
show that the vendor, Mrs Phinney.
bark as i her security for the deferred pay
ments This section OF the contract, which
is one Of its vital points, reads as follows:
TT is further stipulated and agreed
hy and between the said parties . mia that
Phinneyl will make no claim under
said ordinance, this contract or said
mortgage. or under. either one or more
Of said Instruments. that the said
party OF the second part has any right
or remedy against said party Of the
first part (the city, for the collection or
any part thereof, secured by said mort
gage, except to resort to the property
mortgaged.
by and between the parties hereto
that no personal or general liability on
tine part of the city of Seattle Is created
BY tbs contract cont beyo Id me ty now
Seattle, available for the payment of
said first cash payment Of 5000 to be
paid on the acceptance OF the deed"
Mr.. Thomson Grows Sarcastic.
Mr.. Thomson opposed the purchase. He
grew sarcastic In referring to the speeches
of the attorneys. The arguments on both
sides are convincing" he said Then the
president of the board asked Corporation
the right OF the board to sign the con-
TRACT
dinance held to be Illegal, can the city
recover the 5000 paid to Mrs. Phinney?''
asked Mr.. Thomson.
Mr.. Humphrey, replying, said: 1.-THE
council has passed this ordinance; The
forming only ministerial act. I would
not pretend TO say how lawsuit might
terminate, There IL no legal objection at
this time to the execution of the contract
by the board
Mr.. Thomson then wanted to know II the
board had any discretion In the matter.
Mr.. Humphrey said IL the board did not
execute the contract it was probable the
superior court would issue a writ of man :
date directing 1t so to do, statement which
Gen. Carr disputed
Mr.. Thomson then raised the question
of the lateness of the hour, 1t being then
after $50 O'Clock. Finally, a motion made
by Mr.. Little and seconded by Mr. Youngs
contract prevailed by two-thirds vote.
Mr.. Thomson not voting.
The session of the board ended after Mr..
Thomson had affixed his signature to the
contract