The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-11-25

the deal IL removed Corporation Counsel
Humphrey Will advise the board of public
works not to take action. pending the hear
Ing OF the case on matters Of fact II am
not inclined to delay action II the case
goes to the supreme COURT said Mr.
Humphrey. but think 1t better TO walt
until Judge Moore has finally disposed Of
the case. 1t looks as If we would be able
20 agree on a statement Of facts in which
case, IL viii not take the Judge long TO
render his final decision on the merits
In his decision yesterday Judge Moore
said that on the showing in court he
thought the ordinance on which the con-
tract for the purchase OF Woodland park
will rest. 10 be I'm accord with the provis-
ions OF the charter. Continuing he said: ct
do not think that a personal or general In
debtedness en- the part Of the city IL ere
ated within the meaning or the charter
The injunction II denied and the restrain
Ing order dismissed"
Does the Ordinance Conflicts
Gen. f. NJ. Carr. OF counsel for
Abrams took an exception 10 the ruling
II was then agreed between counsel that a
statement or facts he gotten up as soon
as possible and submitted 70 the court I'm
order 10 facilitate the final hearing
Ger. Carr In attacking the right os tho
board Of public works 10 proceed with the
contract cen'endei chat the ordinance
authorizing the contract was In conflict
with the charter. and that the city had
already reached the limit Of constitutional
Indebtedness. He said that while opposing
counsel might contend that (, was not
debt OF the city the ordinance treated the
affair n sale by Mrs. Phinuey :, the
city. Paying money into the park fund
and then applying II 20 specific payment
was only an indirect way Of meeting n
general liability THE city will certainly
be called upon 10 meet this debt" contin-
ned Mr., Carr, "ana ~ there Ia not sufficient
money I'm the park fund then the city
council will levy a tax
''rhe moment this contract is made the
charter provisions as 10 constitutional In
dehtedness will be violated unless there Is
sicaeoa In the park fund, There is not
even an appropriation made fer the first
payment You can't break this debt un
into sections The city ~ Seattle huvs the
entire tract and the city must meet the
expense. one way II aot by another The
ordinance Itself provides that in case tire
park fund is not adequate there shall he
a tax levy
There may Re expectations OF funds
canning FL - meet ttie payments hut n
anything happens that these moneys 4,
rot come tn then this debt certainly be-
comes general deb; against the city"
Attorney James r. Howe made the py,n-
ctFAb argument Ter tHs city. tie said fFat
tire opposing roau~.l had overlooked furfi-
mental propositions which gere applira-
he IL tire present case. I'VE 81 not con-
ex1e for ore moment" said Mr. Howe
FthAf there is provision In the o~st-
nance which conflicts with TIE charter
We contend that the city council simply
pat in ore ordinance what IS ordinarily
Pat 81 two. A prominent feature ~ this
ordinance ia thzt the only obligation on
T. a.
Mr.. Howe for the city.
~ e1ursers contention IS correct sc 20
tfe park fans the city cannot rurChase
more parks Until the fJnsf contains .no~ev
sufficient, u rnake the f,lu payment This
- practically rrohlti'ory, While waiting
property WITT GROW also and TIRE purchase
Will never ~ made
re claimed tAat there wss ne personal or
general liability IN the part ~ :he city.
that the ordinance must ia cerss rEf9 a a
whole and az TIRE city IL sos require! 20
levy a tax 20 vne%f payment. fhe-e was
rsatning in The prayer fer an Injunction
Attorney George Dcnwcrth foslnw@5 SIR,
Howe He also represented IRE city. He
gave considerable attention 81 the tar levy
rc4nt rsiSeA BY Gen. Carr We construed
this rsrt 81 ths ordinance 20 simply declare
3 ysnslsy as - INC meeting e ravrueaf@
s'rse eaiy aGesfBor.T' cSsatiFrse Sr Don
worth is whether :he city esu1eii has
crested debt and !n 81 acinx has gome
esxsuS It's powssx We contend tia, there