City Attorney Fined for Contempt of Court
A legal showdown over mayoral authority and the power to control city prosecutions leads to a judge fining the city attorney for refusing to act.
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.
City Attorney Fortson was fined $50 by Judge Glasgow yesterday for contempt of court, and Mayor Ronald is to appear this morning to answer why he should not also be fined for a similar offense. When the case was called, Judge Glasgow intimated to Mr. Howe, the assistant corporation counsel, that he should continue his argument. Mr. Howe argued that the city attorney was acting under the direction of the law department and the chief executive of the city, and therefore could not be guilty of contempt. He cited the city charter, which places the direction of litigation in the hands of the corporation counsel and makes the city attorney an assistant. Judge Glasgow responded, 'It is to me an astounding proposition that the city attorney can, without making showing of any reason, dismiss a case at pleasure. I see no way but to punish the defendant.' Mr. Howe gave notice of appeal to the superior court, and Judge Glasgow placed the bond at the nominal sum of $100.
“It is to me an astounding proposition that the city attorney can, without making showing of any reason, dismiss a case at pleasure.”
This 1893 struggle over whether the City Attorney answers to the Mayor or the Court echoes contemporary debates about the independence of the City Attorney's office and the limits of executive power in Seattle. The tension between the City's legal department and the judicial process remains a recurring theme in Seattle governance.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.