A Missing Word Nearly Derailed Bellingham's First City Election

OLYMPIA, Wash. — The supreme court has handed down its decision in the case brought to enjoin the election of city officers for the newly consolidated city of Bellingham. The decision upholds the superior court of Whatcom county, and thereby gives authority of law to the holding of the city election December 22. Had the decision been otherwise, the two cities of Whatcom and Fairhaven would have had to hold separate elections of officers, and the actual consolidation of the cities would have been postponed for six months.

The case is interesting from the fact that the courts took the very unusual course of going back of the enrolled bill of the legislature to determine the actual intent of that body in passing the law.

The legislature of 1903 sought to amend the law governing the consolidation of contiguous cities only in one particular, which point did not affect materially the Whatcom case. The act that was in force previous to the last session of the legislature was re-enacted with the amendment above referred to, but, in enrolling the former law the enrolling clerks left out the word "within" in that part of the old law which provides that the election in the consolidated city shall be held within six months after consolidation.

This inadvertent change resulted in requiring that the election should be held "six months" after consolidation. The city officers of Whatcom, which is the larger of the two cities, called the election for the consolidated city, however, for December 21, which was less than two months after the consolidation. Miller G. Scouten, a taxpayer, brought suit to enjoin the election.

The city, in answering the complaint, brought out the history of the bill, showing that the omission of the word "within" was inadvertent, and had not the sanction of the legislature, and it was contended that the election should be held in accordance with the provisions of the old law. The appellant, Scouten, demurred to the affirmative answer of the respondents on the grounds that it was insufficient in law to constitute a defense. The lower court overruled the demurrer, the appellant declined to further plead, and judgment was rendered in favor of the city.

The supreme court sustains the contention of the city that such ambiguity exists in the law of 1903 that an examination into the legislative intent is necessary in order to interpret it, and it finds that the statute of 1890 was not amended in the particular urged by the city; i.e., the word "within" should be considered as being a part of the sentence from which it was omitted. The court, in discussing the ambiguity of the act as it stands on the statute books, points out the inconsistency between the requirements and other portions of the act, such as the giving of the notice, which under one portion must be for a period of fifteen days but when construed literally under the portion in discussion must be for a period of six months. It also calls attention to the fact that a definite date at six months from the day of consolidation might fall on Sunday or on a legal holiday.

The opinion is a majority one, signed by Justices Hadley, Anders and Dunbar. Fullerton and Mount dissented on the ground that the new act is so plain that it needs no construction and is not in any way ambiguous.