The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1912-02-29
cram ADVERTISEMENT,
~ III F7Es y 1T F9-F y
D|DBRAOfORDS SELL
THE PEOPLE OUT
IN THE TfLE-
PHONE CASE?

The proceeding In the telephone
case WAS and ~ scheme TO tie the
people so tight that they cannot
Kick and then skin them.
They fIsfadf1fd and his aiiieaI
procure an Injunction 10 the super.
Tor court. cnloining the telephone
company from collecting the higher
rates; this looks like q move 10 pro-
tsct the people. but " Is not. The
e s,,J.ss. of snis movs i g give ne
application for Writ Of Prohibit
tIou. applied for by the teiephane
company. tying up the injunction
Of the superior court.
A. soon ~ they obtain the In
June ts0n In the superior court they
apply to tho supreme court for a
Writ Of Prohibition. on the ground
that the enforcement uf the fn1unr.
tion by the superior court would
cause irrepaFable injury 10 the tsis-
phone company, and BY reason of the
improper stipulation and unprofas-
sional conduct Of James r. Bradford.
who II now a candidate for Corpora
ton Counsel A Writ Of Prohibition
II Issued BY the supreme court
against the superior court. COM
mandInE the superior court not 10
enforce the Injunction. and the peo@
ple are thereby tied hand and foot
40 that they cannot feaiat and the
corporation IN akfnnlng them aud
HHtHAIA hHFtE Df0UUs
This scheme was conceived I'm In.
iquity and brought forth In corrup-
tion. The experience and efficiency
Of James u. Bradford consists In be.
trnying the people. The result OF his
experience 4 that the people are
paying 100000 per Hnnum blood
money 10 the independent Telephone
Company. because James r.. Brad
ford represented the telephone COM
pany InAtsad OF the people white
corporation counsel.
In the supreme Court.
In passing upon this case. our SUI
prems court said.
The city admits that the fran
chise rates are Inadequate" and
again, II should be understood that
We fthe eourt are not passing upon
the fairnrsa OF the new rates Its
fairness Is admitted b. counsel for
The city Games IT, Bradford).
Bradford Against Recall LAW.
Bradford was with the recall as
sociation when GIN was recalled.
but now. when the recall petition
against Max Wardaii and II. l..
Blaine is filed. Bradford, when corr
pDrnflon counsel Of our city. con-
tends as follows In his answer:
Third Affirmative Defense.
And for a further answer and as
q third affirmative defense, this do
PENDANT AYERS that the recall pro-
vision Of the charter. under which
Haid petitions are attempted 10 be
filed IL unconstitutional and illegal
and void, and that all the anid pro-
ceadings attempted to be had there
under IN the present case are Illegal
and void"
Signed by
JAMES u. BRADFORD.
H. ID. HUGHES.
Attorneys for Said Defendants and
blaine and Wardail
Verified by H. ~. Chandler first
assistanD az acting City Comptrol-
Ter and ex~Officfo City Clerk or the
City Of Seattle. February Is 1912.
Before II. A. Hanson, Notary, etc.
Served on r. H. Hammond. Febfu.
AIRY 10. 1919.
II YOU vote for u. J. Brown for
corporation counsel. George w. Scott
for treasurer &. J. Jacobs for the
three year term and David Burgess
for tho ons-year term in tho council.
the "biR grnfters" will have to move
cut Of the city hall.