The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1903-12-03
BELLINGHAM BAY NEED NOT WAIT
Supreme Court Holds That Election
May Be Held At This
Time.

OLYMPIA WaSh.,-The supreme
court has handed down it's decision
in the case brought to enjoin the cleo
ton of city officers for the newly con-
solidated city of Bellingham. The de-
cisiOn uphOlds the superior court of
Whatcom county, and thereby gives
authority of law to the holding of the
city election December %. Had the
decision been otherwise, the two cities
of Whatcom and Fairhaven would
have had to hold separate elections of
officers, and the actual consolidation
of the cities would have been post
pOned for six months
The case is interesting from the fact
that the courts took the very unusual
course of going back of the enrolled
bill of the legislature to determine the
actual intent of that body in passing
the law.
The Legislature of 1903 sought to
amend the law governing the consol-
idatiOn of contiguous cities only in
one particular, which point did not
affect materially the Whatcom case.
The act that was in force previous to
the last session of the legislature was
re-enacted with the amendment above
referred to, but, in enrolling the for
mer law the enrolling clerks left out
the word within in that part of the
old law which provides that the cleo
ton in the consolidated city shall be
held within six months after CONSOLE
dation.
This inadVertent change resulted in
requiring that the election should be
held six months after consolidate
The city officers of Whatcom, which
is the larger of the two cities called
the election for the consolidated city,
however, for December %, which was
less than two months after the con-
solidation. Miller G.. Scouten, a tax
payer. brought suit to enjoin the cleo
ton.
The city, in answering the COM
plant, brought out the history of the
bill, showing that the omission of the
word within" was inadvertent. and
had not the sanction of the legislature
and it was contended that the election
should be held in accordance with the
provisions of the old law. The appel
liant Scouten. demurred to the affirm
atiVe answer of the respondents on
the grounds that it was insufficient in
law to constitute a defense. The
lower court OVerruled the demurrer
the appellant declined to further plead
and Judgment was rendered in favor
of the city,
The supreme court sustains the con-
tention of the city that such ambigui
ty exists in the law of 1903 that an
examination into the legislative in
tent is necessary in order to interpret
it, and it finds that the statute of 1890
urged by the city; i. E., the word
"within'' should be considered as be-
ing a part of the sentence from which
it was omitted. The court, in discuss
ing the ambiguity of the act as it
stands on the statute books points out
the inconsistency between the require
ments and other portions Of the act,
such as the giving Of the notice, which
under one portion must be for a period
of fifteen days but when construed
literally under the portion in discus
sion must be for a period Of six
months. 1t also calls attention to the
fact that definite date at six months
from the day of consolidation might
fall on Sunday or on a legal holiday.
The opinion is a majority one, sign
ed by Justices Hadley( Anders and
Dunbar Fullerton and Mount dissent
ed on the ground that the new act is
so plain that it needs no construction
| and is not in any way ambiguous.