The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1914-02-07


lnirsion. The city - Seattle. through
Bradford. corporation counsel com
plalned that tho proposed raise Ia
rates was unreasonable. but Mr.
bradford again failed or refused 10
present tho real issue and furnish
evidence OF the facts. bat practically
turned the people over Ga the gas
company on a point Of law In 40.
ridins this css~ our supreme court
aaif
"A, the hearing neither IN. com.
piainans tmesnlnE tho city, nor the
defendant, produced any convincing
evidences tending 20 show either The
rrasonasiensss Of the zs-cent or the
so.csn, minimum
Nv. Bradford furnished no eyl.
peoples case was allowed TO 40 BY
default. as far as evidence OF the
facts was concerned. Hs the court
continued. saying
"Whiis u linesning the public
service cnmmiFalonJ did delegate it@
own engineer 20 make an inaspend.
ent lnrcstiEatlon touching the reap-
onablrness Of tho new rate and re-.
|ceived his testimony upon th. result,
Of bis Investigations and 20 that 81
tent may be said 10 have treated lts
inquiry as being upon It's own mo-
ton, u apparently concluded that
further Investigation upon its own
motion wna not called for, and Was
% the opinion that the evidence
produced by the city. which n
treated as the complainant. togs,hsr
with that produced upon its own
motion. did not show tho new rate
to BE- unreasonable"
Jim Bradford. tho following para
graphs from cur suprcms court
should siienc. you forever as man
and lawyer seeking public office.
We do not find u seriously con.
tended In IN. brief OF counsel for
the city that the evidence produced
before the commission was such ms
90 call for affirmative finding hy
the commission that tho proposed
nrw rate IL unreasonable or that the
original rate r. reasonable but only
that the commission should have
preeesnea upon The theory either
that the burden Of proof war upon
tho lighting company to sSow the
rchaunRhi@ness OF tts PROPOSED new,
rate. and upon that theory should
have decided the original rate 20 be
reasonable, or should have pro-
eerded with tho inquiry upon It's own
Initiative and brought other evI.
dencc before IL and made an affirm.
aiive finding OF what rate 10 rear.
onahle. based upon such evidence e"
We are OF tho opinion that the
commission was no, by law required
20 pursue the inquiry beyond the
evidence produced before u by tho
contettinr parties. to-wit. the city
and tho lighting company. TO any
greater extent than IN Its own Judy.
msnt would bs necessary or proper"
See State ep rel. city Of Seattle
W.. Public Service Commission of
Washington. Advance sheets. Pacific
Reporter. Vol is6. No. 0. January
s. 1914,
Mr.. Bradford. realizing the .-r,ou.
effect this decision IN the ahov. case
would have on his campaign. ana re-.
auxinE what serious criticism and
reflection the courts decision was
upon his tBradfords) conduct as a
LAWYER In presenting the olty's case.
Immediately sought rehearing be-
fore the Supreme Court In order 20
argue tho law further and Justify
his conducting OF the case. which
rehcaring the court promptly denied.
THE THIRD CASE.
The municipal street railway case
was IN our superior court and IN
being held up by Mr. Howard n
Hughes I'm tho corporation counscra
office until Mr.. Hughes left that
office and associated himself with
the people who are fighting our city
speedy stipulation BY Bradford in
this case. The monopoly does not
want speed and Jim does not APP
pear to. when the oity's interests re-
auire II. ms shown IN tho gas and
telFpnpHf tAttN.
THE FOURTH CASE.
Tho Seattle Electric Company
owed our city over $4,000 for re
pairs 10 our water system caused
by damage from electrolysis. due 10
lack OF equipment 10 care for cleo
trio current which escapes from the
Seattle Electric CcTnpany's tracks.
In July. 1919, Mr. Bradford was
urged by our city light department
and our water department. TO bring
an action against the seattle Eiec.
trio Company FOR the collection Of
como $4,000. but TO date no action
has been brought This matter. like
the city street ear case and the tclv-
phone case, was turned over 10 Mr.
Hughes, who is the son OF Mr. r.
G. Hughes. tho attorney for the teie-
phone company and many other
public service corporations
WITH these facts. I leave tho peo-
pie to Judge whether Mr. Bradford,
In presenting such important cases
In such u careless. slip-shod and un-
lawycr-like manner. Is entitled TO
your further confidence and sup
port Does not this question answer
Itself?
II YOU vote for me. be sure 60
w. ~ fIazen for comptroller. George
| w Scott for treasurer Caas Hermit
and G. \. Jacobs for the three year
term and Charles -. Rhymer and
~ NJ Winfield FOR the two-year
term In our city council
EDWIN 7 BROWN.
For Corporation Counsel
vNid Adyertisement)