The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1906-08-04

newspaper in which said notice of hearing
was published. The statutory provision
was simply ignored. 1t was the duty of
the prosecuting attorney to see that the
terms of the statute we're complied with.
IRREGULARITy No.
The board was not regularly convened
as board of.county commissioners. Of
fetal records of the county, open to lub
lie Inspection, show that the board OF
county commissioners ofSan Juan county
met as board of equalization to equalize
the assessments of the year 1905, on Mon
day. August Z. 1905. This was the first
Monday in August. Under the terms OF
the statute Section $3.50, Pierce's code)
they were required to meet at this time,
and the statute further provides that the
board of equalization shall continue and
remain in session net less than three DAYS.
The official records show that such board
cid convene on Monday, August Z, 1906
the first Monday in August, with all the
county commissioners present; that said
board remained in session from Monday.
August Z, until p. M. August 8, as the
law required they should do. The records
of the board further show that this appli-
cation was granted on August 9, 1905, the
same being one of the dates tcat the board
OF equalization was required by law to be
in session. Clearly, this is a serious ir-
regularity, and since the prosecuting at
torney was present in person to guide the
board In every step taken. it would seem
that the responsibility for this irregularity
is also chargable to that official.
1t will be seen that almost every act of
the prosecuting attorney has been charac-
terized by error.
IT is true, perhaps, that Mr.. Jensen is
now in possession of a lease from the
county beard of commissioners. 1t may
be in proper form and verbiage, but if, as
have established, it was illegally grant
ed, it requires no great legal mind to per-
ceive the fact that it affords no reghts
which cannot be contested successfully by
any citizen of Friday Harbor the moment
that Mr.. Jensen attempts to take poses
sion of any part of the public street desig-
mated therein. Whether or not there will
be such contest. it is unnecessary to dis
cuss.
Now, as to what was expected from this
appeal, all / have to say is that the appel
lants asked the supreme court for an or
der in the superior court to quash these
void proceedings had before the county
commissioners and for a reversal of the
cause, and we expected such an order to
be granted. AS to what the prosecuting
attorney expected, it is hard to determine.
since his statements may have been made
simply "for the purpose OF argument
but he stipulated in writing before the SUI
perior court that in case the writ of cetior-
ari should issue, the record then before
the court should be deemed the complete
record and a decision on the merits should
be given by the court.
In the supreme court the same counsel
all his efforts to preventing the
Supreme court acting in accordance with
this stipulation. He claimed that the
stipulation had spent it's force in the sn-
perior court AS to why this official took
such position has been made clear in the
detailed statement of irregularities which
/ have presented, and his admission as TO
their effect. Thus, we fine that the great
question IN which the people of San Juan
County were interested, was not passed
npoI by the Appellate court, largely be-
cause the representative of the county
it. If the acts of the Board
were regular and valid; if the order grant
ing the lease to Mr.. Jensen was legal.
then why should the prosecuting attorney
fear review Of such acts before the SUI
preme Court?
In conclusion. it is not my desire to de-
prive this county official of the fruits of
his extraordinary victory. He is entitled
the consolation that the opinion Of the Su-
preme Court in this case affords. So. let
the celebration continue, and let all proud
" acclaim to the world that the Prosecutor
Of San Juan County has at last successful
~ prosecuted a case in court.
w. r. GARRETT.