Reeves v. Anderson

• Citation: 42 P. 625,13 Wash. 17
• Parties: REEVES v. ANDERSON ET AL.
• Decision Date: 05 November 1895
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

42 P. 625

13 Wash. 17

REEVES v. ANDERSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 5, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Proceedings by William H. Reeves against Alexander Anderson and others comprising the house of delegates of the city of Seattle, the city of Seattle, and Byron Phelps, mayor of said city, to compel defendants to authorize the calling of an election for the purpose of choosing freeholders to prepare a new municipal charter. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. T Scott and Frank A. Steele, for appellants.

Carr &amp Preston, for respondent.

GORDON, J.

Respondent instituted this proceeding in the superior court of King county for the purpose of compelling the appellants, the mayor, aldermen, and members of the house of delegates of Seattle, a city of the first class, containing a population exceeding 20,000, to authorize the calling of an election within said city for the purpose of choosing 15 freeholders to prepare a new charter for said city by "altering changing, revising, adding to, or repealing the existing charter as amended," in accordance with the prayer of a petition of upward of one-fourth of the qualified electors of said city, which petition had been presented to and rejected by the city council prior to the institution of this proceeding. The demurrer of the appellants having been overruled, and they having elected to stand thereupon judgment was rendered against them in the court below, from which judgment they have appealed to this court.

Upon the part of appellants it is contended that the act of March, 4, 1895, upon which respondent relies, is unconstitutional, and numerous reasons are assigned in support of this contention. The main objections to the act (and, as we think, the only ones meriting extended notice) may be stated to be: (1) That it is a delegation of legislative power without constitutional sanction. (2) The constitution points out the only method by which the charter may be amended, viz. by proposals submitted by the legislative authority of such city to the voters. (3) That the constitutional provision (article 11, § 10) is directory and permissive, and vests discretion in the city council as to whether it will call an election of the freeholders to frame a charter; and that such discretion cannot be controlled by legislative enactment. (4) That the power to adopt a charter for its own government (subject to general laws of the state) has been once exercised by the city of Seattle, and hence that the power has been exhausted. (5) That said constitutional provision is self-executing, and that legislative interference is unauthorized. Section 10, art. 11, of the state constitution, already referred to, provides: "*** Any city containing a population of twenty thousand inhabitants or more shall be permitted to frame a charter for its own government consistent with and subject to the constitution and laws of this state, and for such purpose the legislative authority of such city may cause an election to be had, at which election there shall be chosen by the qualified electors of said city fifteen freeholders thereof, who shall have been residents of said city for a period of at least two years preceding their election, and qualified electors, whose duty it shall be to convene within ten days after their election, and prepare and propose a charter for such city. Such proposed charter shall be submitted to the qualified electors of said city, and if a majority of such qualified electors voting thereon ratify the same, it shall become the charter of said city and shall become the organic law thereof, and supersede any existing charter, including amendments thereto, and all special laws inconsistent with such charter. *** Such charter may be amended by proposals therefor submitted by the legislative authority of such city to the electors thereof at any general election, after notice of said submission published as above specified, and ratified by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon. ***" Section 1 of the act entitled "An act to authorize cities of the first class to alter, change, revise, add to or repeal their respective charters," approved March 4, 1895, is as follows: "Upon the petition of one-fourth of the qualified electors, as shown by the last general city election, of any city of the first class, the city council of said city shall, and without such petition the city council in joint session may, cause an election to be held, at which election there shall be chosen by the qualified electors of said (city) fifteen freeholders thereof, who shall have been residents of said city for a period of at least two years preceding their election, and qualified electors, whose duty it shall be to commence within ten days after their election, and within sixty days thereafter prepare a new charter for said city by altering, changing, revising, adding to or repealing their existing charter, together with any amendments thereto, and file the same with the city clerk."

Before proceeding to a consideration of the objections urged against the constitutionality of this enactment in the order already noted, we may here remark that it is a very general rule that before the judiciary will declare an act of the legislature invalid on the ground that it is in conflict with the constitution such conflict must be shown to be clear and unquestionable, and every intendment must be given force in favor of the constitutionality of the law. This rule was recognized by this court in Nelson v. Troy, 39 P. 974, and is so well understood and universally recognized as to require no citation of authorities.

In support of the contention that the act in question is a delegation of a legislative power, we are cited to article 2 § 1, of the constitution, which is: "Section 1. The legislative powers shall be...