The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-02-14
Profound Discussion of Important
Questions.
is TAKEN UNDER AMUSEMENT
Judge Moore Promises n Decision In
Day or so-Is Hard at Work
Examining Authorities - Defend
ants Claim That Their Opponents
Fear the Passage of valid
Rather Than an invalid Ordinance


street railway franchise case" wherein
exMayor Wood and others seeking to
enJoin the city council from passing an
ordinance granting a thirty -fve-year fran
chfse, was finished in the equity depart
ment OF the superior court last evening.
Judge Moore took the case under adj wise
ment, promising a decision in lay or
so.
The argument yesterday was addressed
mainly to the question OF whether eN-
Mayor Woods complaint on its face, as
sumed to be true. stated case emitting
him to temporary injunction. II the court
holds In favor OF Mr.. Wood 1t will then
proceed to consider the answer OF the city
council and others and the affidavits filed
by the defendant, which deny many Of the
allegations in the original complaint
When the case came up YESTERDAY II
stood az follows The defendants had
demurred 10 the complaint. and the plain
tins had demurred 10 the affirmative TN
swer OF the defendants. From this con-
dition OF things the argument taken as a
whole covered much ground and involved
much that was of Importance. Ex-Mayor-
Ronald, Jay c. Allen and Alfred Battle
argued for ex-Mayor Woods side of the
case. while Incorporation Counsel Don
worth and John b. Howe represented the
opposition
II was contended by those who seek TO
enjoin the council that the provisions Of
the city charter have not been followed
They objected to the provision allowing
thirty days in which to accept the fran
chise. arguing that because in street i'm
provement matters. etc. parties must exc
cute a contract within ten days after the
acceptance OF their bid by the city. Mr.
Alien spoke vigorously on the monopoly
feature. He said the ordinance was void
because IL created one Of the most gigantic
lrt,At la ~.
state constitution
Not Published In Full.
1t was further argued that the franchise
had not been published ten days as re-
quired by the charter In this connec-
ton II was pointed ont that what was
published did not cover the ground, as
material points were left blank. In this
way. It was said. the people were left in
Ignorance OF matters on which they de-
sired TO be Informed. There Is nothing
said about the per cent. the city is 10 re-
ceive." said Mr.. Allen. IF 1t was a GER
tain per cent a taxpayer might think well
of the proposition; but II 1t was another
he might conclude II was bad legsla-
ton
This ordinance is invalid because Il
Is an extension OF existing franchises II
this ordinance In not invalid we might as
well burn the city charter. and go II
blind" In closing Mr.. Allen contended
that court Of equity had the right to
interfere when legislative bodies exceed
their powers.
In the course of their argument Mr. Dom
worth and Mr.. Howe called attention 70
the alleged fact that the plaintiffs were
determined TO find fault with the procedure
In connection with the ordinance. no mat
ter what 1t was, and said that when II
came 10 telling what should have been
done got into great confusion among ;hom-
selves. Mr., Allen I'm one part OF his argu-
ments said that the ordinance could not
be passed within thirty days after the
acceptance of the bid and In another
argued that the successful bidder must
accept the ordinance within ten days after
the council accepted the bid. This would
require the grantee TO accept the ordinance
twenty days before II was passed
II was also shown tina, the uniform
course OF procedure since the adoption Of
the charter had been the same as that pur-
sued in this case, A number OF cases we're
cited holding that where a law md been
uniformly construed one way by the aff-
GERS charged with its execution, the courts
would adopt that construction as corract
unless II was plainly erroneous,
Mr. Donwor,h asked ~ the Yesler way
tracks were to be torn up because the char
ter provisions might have been construed
in a different way from the construction
adopted when IL was apparent that the
construction was as reasonable as any that
could be proposed.
A New Franchise.
The proposed franchise was not m ex-
tension OF any existing franchise. but was
new and independent one, under which
the highest bidder. whoever he Is, to whom
the council may award the franchise
might construct. maintain and operate the
entire system called for ny the franchise
without owning or using any Of tho ex-
NbArR sxfaa fz.aff
vent any person who should acquire the
franchise from building and operating en-
treiy new lines.
The present franchises, Il was contended.
were not exclusive, hut II the plaintiffs
wer. right in their contentious. the fran
thisss would become exclusive because the
plaintiffs were denying the right 81 the
council 10 grant any other franchises. Ia
fact. II the plaintiffs were right. Il meant
that the court Was TO ignore The provisions
of the charter and ordinances. declaring
that existing franchises were not exciu-
siye. The fact thai existing tracks might
be used under the new franchise. u made
10 conform 10 the new requirements, was
not a disadvantage 10 any bidder. this
"A mere permission. In the event that
existing tracks we're used. the city would
Re benefited, as the city would get a rev
euue on all receipts % the entire traffic
op the streets Involved.
EeIeNing 10 the question ~ The right
~ the plaintiffs to maintain a suit. IL was
declared that only one case could bc found
whore Tho passage ~ au ordinance grant.
inC franchise had ever been enioineI
BY a court~an early case IN New YorS
Afterwards reversed by the eour, 81 az
peais
\ nambe~ ot cases were cited holding
that the passage Of ordinances Rrantinr
franchises and similar ordinances woutd
not Re cnjoiued BY the courts, even though
Il WAS claimed that the council had exceed
ed It's authority. out would allow the coan-
cil 70 proceed with les deliberations rather
than interfere with municipal legislation
II Invalid. Cenld ne Enjoined.
ID was admitted that the enforcement ~
ordinances ccuid br cujoiued q invalid.
after their enactment had been cornpeted
DILLON on Municipal Corporations" WAS cit
ed as sustaining This view, Il was urEai
that what the plaintiffs really desired was
20 block the enactment Of a franchise
which when enacted. would BE- valid .helr