Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1906-03-01
INITIATIVE UPHELD
STATE SUPREME COURT SUs.
TAlNS Law OF 1908.
Gives to Voters OF Cities OF the rlrsi
Class the Right to Take Franchise
S1stiers Out Of Hands OF City Coun.
ellis - Decision Was in TeIephone
Franchise Case from Spoksae.

court has sustained the law of 1908,
first class the right of initiative with
respect to granting franchises. The
decision was rendered in the much
discussed Spokane telephone case of
w. w. Hindman against Mayor Boyd
and the council of that city. Hind
fnan. rs attorney for the Independent
Telephone Company, brought proceed
ings in the superior court demanding
the issuance Of writ of mandate re-
quiring the council to submit to the
voters an amendment to the Spokane
charter governing the manner Of grant
ing franchises. The petition for the
writ was based upon the contention
that petition of ZOO voters, or more
than Is per cent Of tho number OF
those who had voted ut the previous
city election. had been presented to
the council under the 1908 law for the
charter amendment, and that the
council was neglecting or refusing to
submit the proposition.
There were many technical points
raised before the Spokane court. The
city, which was represented in tho de-
Tense by the attorney for the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph Com
pany, commended that the petition did
no: contain the Is per cent of the vot-
ers named, that many of the signers
we're secured through fraud and mis-
representation.
This defense the lower court over
ruled, and therein committed error,
says the supreme corut. The writ was
granted and appeal was taken. Efforts
were made to dismiss the appeal. but
the court holds that the appeal was
properly taken.
Various Points Discussed
The court takes up the various ques
tions raised and discusses them Il,
length. 1t first finds the act is not
unconstitutional and holds the objec-
tions taken to the title to be without
merit. 1t declares that the people
have the right to take the matter OF
granting or rejecting franchises into
their own hands, and that the citizen:
are greater than the charter and may
amend the charter to keep that power
if they desire.
The corut holds also that registra
tion is not necessary element in the
qualifications of voter to entitle him
to sign the petitions provided by the
1903 law referred to. In other words
the Is per cent of the number Of quail
flied voters may be made up of voters
whether they are registered or not
Because of the denial to the defense
Of an opportunity to submit proof
against the sufficiency of the petition
tho supreme court decides as follows
The case is remanded with instruc
tions to take testimony upon the noe
essary facts concerning the validity o.
the petitions and to enter findings
thereon. If these findings show thai
the petition is in compliance with thu
law then the order heretofore mad'
<that granting the writ of mandate
shall be confirmed and ratified 'If thu
facts are found to be rs commended b,
the defense, that is, that not enough
signatures appear on the petition o
they were obtained through fraud ant
Misrepresentation, the writ will b.
vacated and tho action dismissed