State v. Fairley

• Decision Date: 01 November 1913
• Citation: 136 P. 374,76 Wash. 332
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LYNCH et al. v. FAIRLEY et al., City Council.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

136 P. 374

76 Wash. 332

STATE ex rel. LYNCH et al. v. FAIRLEY et al., City Council.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 1, 1913

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of C. B. Lynch and another against Robert Fairley and others, composing the city council of the city of Spokane. From a judgment denying the writ relators appeal. Affirmed.

Burcham & Blair, of Spokane, for appellants.

H. M Stephens, of Spokane, for respondent.

PARKER J.

These actions are brought here by relators seeking a review and reversal of judgments of the superior court for Spokane county denying mandamus to compel the city council of that city to order a recall election submitting to the voters the question of the recall of two of its councilmen, under the provisions of its charter. The superior court denied the relief prayed for upon the ground that the recall provisions of the Spokane charter are superseded by the provisions of the amendment to the state Constitution of 1912, being sections 33 and 34 of article 1 thereof, and chapter 146, Laws 1913, enacted in pursuance of that amendment. The contention is made by counsel for relators, rested upon section 10, art. 11, of the Constitution, permitting cities of more than 20,000 inhabitants to frame and adopt charters for their own government, that the recall provisions of the Spokane charter, which was framed and adopted in pursuance of section 10, art. 11, of the Constitution, is not superseded by this amendment and the law of 1913 passed in pursuance thereof, providing generally for the recall of public officers.

We agree with the learned trial court that this contention is not well founded. Both the constitutional amendment and the law of 1913 enacted in pursuance thereof are made applicable to cities of the first class by specific reference therein made to such cities and constitute a general law upon the subject of the recall of officers of such cities as well as the recall of officers of the state and other political subdivisions of the state.

It has become the settled law of this state that freehold city charters framed in pursuance of the permission granted by section 10, art. 11, of the Constitution, are controlled by general laws. State ex rel. Webster v Superior Court, 67 Wash. 37, 43, 120 P. 861, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 78. It is conceded that the petitions for recall of the city councilmen here involved do not...