The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-04-20

THE suit OF Tracy n. Robertson az q
citizen and taxpayer TO entcin the
board OF public works from letting
the contract for the construction Of the
Cedar river water system in a manner
ended In a nash IN the pan." to use an
Anticipated sinlIe. Judge Moore OF the su-
psrfor court, before whom the case came
on an application for a temporary Fnjunc-
ton. disposed Of the matter In short order
by refusing the application and dlssoiving
the temporary restraining order granted
on Monday evening
The court after dissoiving the restrain
irg order set the case down for hearing
upon its merits April 2s ard o. Al that
time oral testimony in support OF Mr.
Robertson's complaint will be taken. The
hearing yesterday was had upon afada-
Wits alone. although practically TIE same
ground was covered as will We gone over
or the oral hearing. unless the complaint
Is amended. The sole question In the case,
as Judge Moore viewed It. seemed TO De
whether the board in letting the con-
tract upon the present plans and specia-
cations was following the will OK the peo-
pie as expressed in ordinance s'+e. The
court held that the plans were in full COM
pisance with this ordinance. and that
therefore Robertsc ms suit must fan.
Robertson's Contention.
Roberlson's contention was 4 viii be
remembered that the plans aud speci.ica-
tons deviated seriously from the provi-
sions OF the ordinance in that they did not
provide for the bringing In of sufficient
water from tie intake on Cedar river 10
the -mpoupiing reservoir at Swan lake.
and frcm swan lake to the city. Judge
Moore ruled that as long as the plans
were in accordance with the ordinance as
voted upon by the people they could not
be attacked in suit agains; the hoard Of
its duty. the couF; said. and IL the people
erred in judgment the court could not
remedy the matter I'm the present suit.
Ro5er;sons attorneys. Burke. Shepard &
McCi.yra, have not, however. given up
the fight. In an interview last night they
stated the refusal of the court to grant a
temporary injunction was mere incl
dent to the litigation. and that the suit
would go on just as IL a temporary in
Junction had not been applied for.
We only desire 10 say for publication"
said one OF the firm that the bill OF
complaint will be amended at once TO
bring in the successful contractors as par
ties defendant. and in other particulars
which / do not care at present to state.
The issues will then be made up and the
case will he .-ied on It's merits next We'd
nesday. We have no desire to delay the
contractors. ana Joined in requesting that
an early trial be had.
The result Of the trial viii determine
the case If We are successful a perina-
nent injunction VIII be issued and the
work stopped. II We are defeated he
work will go on
Yesterdays hearing resembIed nothing
so much as a battle OF affiIavits between
expert witnesses. on one SIDE was ar
raye6 City Engineer Thomson ana his
friends of the same profession. defending
the Cedar river water plans. and on the
other Chief Engineer Thomas r. Jonn-
Ston, OF the Sn0Quamie Falls Power Com
paEy, and other weil-known civil engi-
neers. picking flaws in them.
City Engineers Position.
I; was city Engineer Thomson's stand
that the plans upon which the contract
has now been let will not only bring 5o019,-
CO gallons Of water a day from Cedar riv-
er 10 Swan lake, and y 600 90 gallons
day from the lake 10 the city but viii DO
even ulofs. And he won the day against
Engineer Johnston, whose sworn opinion
was that the plans ara for a system that
Will bring not To exceed a2tfso,Na gallons
Of water daily to Swan lake, and but from
r. zoo 90 to Il. o0v.eo from the lake 10 the
city, thereby wholly failing TO come up TO
the demands Of ordinance 1890
IL IS a coincidence somewhat remarkable
that Mr. Thomson and Mr. Johnson are
both Il years Of age and have both fol-
lowed the profession OF civif engineering
fer little more than twenty years. Roth
have had "A long ard varied experience
and are thoroughly familiar with the sub.
1ec; o5 hydraulics. yet there could hardly
be 3 wider divergence IN their afedavits
Among She expert civil engineers who
signed affdavits corrohorafiug Mr.. Thorn
sons views were ]. II Cunningham.
Charles +. SwigKert and Sidney Smyth
Mr.. Smyth IL one OF the successful con-
tracing iirn 81 Snyth. Wakefield x Da-
VIA - Portland. and one 0f the engineers
who assisted III putting Tn the water sys-
ten row IN use az Portland
Besides Mr.. Johnston. JOHN Ericsson.
Wen knowr Chicago engineer. AMI several
others ~ high professional standing fled
af1i1ati;s FER t7r plaintlG Robertson. Mr.
Johnston Is az present consulting engineer
Tor the Chicago drainage system AMI Mr.
Ericsson IS city engineer % that city
There were no rev developments veSter-
day 'u TIRE Injunction sgtt e Moran = co
+ Mcclellan and StirTat tioe;x & Co
agairst the BEARD - puAllc works. ard II
IS generally considered taat hy.the LETTING
of an" contracts taey were brought "a en-.
tt." 1hcE haze been forever Determined
as.d Mil 10 dropped