The Attorney General’s Power Grab
A critique of Attorney General Jones’s refusal to approve the bonds of the state land commissioners, arguing he has overstepped his constitutional authority.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The action of Attorney General Jones in refusing to approve the bond of T. M. Reed, Jr., as a member of the state land commission seems most extraordinary. The bill creating the land commission provides that the bonds of the commissioners shall be approved by the secretary of state and the attorney general. The evident intent of the act was that the officials named should simply pass upon the sufficiency and legal validity of the bonds submitted. Whether the bill in question is constitutional or not is a matter for the courts and not for Mr. Jones to decide. As the legal adviser of the state, it should be his duty to defend the legality of the acts of the legislature and not to seek to discredit them in advance.
“Whether the bill in question is constitutional or not is a matter for the courts and not for Mr. Jones to decide.”
This 1893 editorial highlights a perennial tension in Washington politics: the friction between executive branch gatekeeping and legislative intent. Battles over public land usage and administrative authority remain central to modern Seattle's civic governance.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.