The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-04-17
CEDAR RIVER CASES TO-DAY.
Facts May He Stipulated and Cases
Ga ON Final Hearing 1T Once.

There 10 s-rong probability that the
entire litigation growing out 9, the seeana
attempt OF .as Doari Of public works 70
10. the contract for the construction Oh
tns Cedar river water system Will be SET
Led today before Judge Moore. as tar as
ire superior court ~ CONCERNED. ana thar
the three injunction cases VIII at once be
appealed 70 the supreme court for specify
final decision, no matter how the lower
court may decide
Were me eases 70 take the usual course
Il would be days, and perhaps weeks. be-
fore the decsssea Of the superior court could
be obtained. But owing 10 the necessity
for a SPECIFY settlement OF the question
involved. TIE usual practice OF TIE court
will probably be departed from. and the
hearing usso:. the application for tenn
porary in Junction treated as an appsica-
ton for u permanent mandatory iujunc-
ton IN ca II IF the cases. Ordinarily the
TWO apple ati0Es are made separately, the
courts ruling upon the latter depending
81 aPG fact the result Of '''a' o. 'as issues
In the present eases however, the facts
are not disputed. and IL Is posi- bic, unless
some one OF the htigants should object.
that the facts viii be stipulated and thu
cases p1t on their nnal hearing 40 once.
The lawyers interested have not agreed 10
DO tats yet. but Il IS said Will consider the
matter this morning and have a stipUla-
ton ready 20 present 10 the court before
the hearing. which Is set for l:se o'clock
this afternoon.
The question involved IN the cases is
whether TIE members of the board Of pub
lie works, VINO are made defendants. have
q rignt 70 consider bids not ecompanied
by certified checks for fall per cent. of
the amount bid. OF the bids submitted
which were Irregular in this respect, the
deficiency was In no case large. Tie char
ter provides. however. that the certified
check shall be per cent. and tins con-
tractors who have begun the injunction
suits claim that any discrepancy in this
respect, however small. IS fatal, and that
their bids, which are the next lowest.
must be accepted.
The board of public works ruled other
wise and was preparing 10 let suh-divi-
s.ons OF the contract 20 the bidders whose
bids were lowest, irrespective of deficiency
n the size OF the certified checks. when
the Injunction suits were commenced
The plaintiffs in the cases are Moran
Bros. Company. which has a bid in for
subdivisions Nos. 3 and 4 OF the contract.
vision >. and +. Mcclellan, who bid upon
subdivision No: /; Smyth. Wakefield q
David. 81 Portland. are the defendants in
the suits of the Morans and of Mcclellan
while the Pacific Bridge Company is de-
PENDANT in the suit OF StIrrat & Goetz.
The contractors are represented by law
yers as follows: Stirrar * Goetz by Sam
Donworth & Howe. +. Mcclellan, by Bal
llnger, Battle 81 Ronald Smyth. Wakefield
David, by John p Hartman; Moran
Bros. Company. by Preston, Carr Il GIL
man.
Some Of the lawyers think that the whole
question In the Injunction suits can be
raised by demurrer 10 the complaints IL
posed OF even more quickly than upon a
stipulation OF the facts, although the ar
gumept on demurrer VIII necessarily cover
the entire ground.