State v. City of New Whatcom

• Decision Date: 20 October 1891
• Citation: 27 P. 1020,3 Wash. 7
• Parties: STATE EX REL. COLE v. CITY OF NEW WHATCOM ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

27 P. 1020

3 Wash. 7

STATE EX REL. COLE v. CITY OF NEW WHATCOM ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 20, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; J. R. WINN, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state of Washington on relation of Albert S. Cole, prosecuting attorney of Whatcom county against the city of New Whatcom, Will D. Jenkins, mayor, and George Cooper and others, councilmen, of said city, to exclude defendants from exercising the privileges and franchises as officers of said city, and to declare said city not a municipal corporation duly and regularly organized under the laws of the state. A demurrer to the information was sustained, and relator appeals. Affirmed.

Fairchild & Rawson and Harris, Black &amp Laming, for appellant.

Dorr & Finch, Rittenhouse & Ivy, Bruce & Brown, and Hadley & Hadley, for respondents.

STILES J.

The issues in this case make the existence of the city of New Whatcom, Whatcom county, depend upon our answer to the following questions: (1) Must the vote of the electors of two municipal corporations, which propose to consolidate under the provisions of section 10 of the act of March 27, 1890, (Acts, p. 138,) be taken at a general election in accordance with the second clause of article 11, § 10, of the constitution; ^[1] or may it be taken at a special election, as permitted by the act? (2) Is the subject-matter of section 10 within the title of the act referred to, viz., "An act providing for the organization, classification, incorporation, and government of municipal corporations?" (3) Does section 10 apply to municipal corporations organized under general incorporation laws, or to other corporations created by special charter, as well as those first mentioned. The city of Whatcom was a municipal corporation created by special act of the territorial legislature. Acts 1883, p. 137. In July, 1888, the inhabitants of certain territory adjacent to the city of Whatcom sought to incorporate that territory into a municipality by the name of the city of Sehome, under the invalid act of February 2, 1888. In April, 1890, the inhabitants of Sehome and certain adjacent territory caused the formation of a corporation under provisions of the act of March 27, 1890, and section 6 thereof, under the name of the city of New Whatcom, they correctly interpreting the decision of this court in Territory v. Stewart, 1 Wash. St. 98, 23 P. 405, and treating the attempted incorporation of the city of Sehome as wholly void. In December, 1890, the cities of Whatcom and New Whatcom took measures under the act of March 27, 1890, which, according to the agreement of the parties to this action, were regular in form, with the exception hereafter noted, and which resulted in the consolidation of the two cities under the corporate name of the city of New Whatcom. The exception noted above is that the election held on the question of consolidation was a special election, which the appellant claims was not authorized by the constitution. The labors of counsel have furnished us with elaborate arguments on both sides, and we might indulge in lengthy discussion on all the points of disagreement; but in our view the grounds of decision are really few and simple.

With regard to the first point, it is to be remarked that the constitution (article 11, § 10) merely limits the legislature in its dealing with municipal corporations to a system of general laws applicable to all, instead of the system of no system through special laws theretofore prevalent; and it does not even permit existing special charters to be further made special and peculiar by amendment, unless the amendments are general, so as to affect an entire class; but to encourage uniformity it provides that existing cities and towns may, without legislative compulsion, drop their special charters, and take up the organization of their respective classes under such general laws as may be enacted. To do this is in no sense to destroy or disincorporate a city or town. The territory covered is to be the same. The name is continued, and the people are identical. But when...