Battle Over the Poorhouse Budget
Taxpayers sue to halt the construction of a new county almshouse, challenging whether public funds can be spent without a direct vote.
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 almshouse case is again taking up the attention of Judge Langley in the superior court. The whole afternoon yesterday was consumed by the attorneys in arguing the motion of the plaintiffs, William Cochrane and others, to enjoin Fred Gasch, John Wooding, and A. L. Rutherford, as county commissioners, from paying out any more money on the construction of the building. The plea of the plaintiffs was that the commissioners had no right to use the public money for such purpose without first having submitted the matter to a vote of the taxpayers; it was set forth that the action of the commissioners was illegal and not in compliance with the law. William H. White, attorney for the defendants, replied that the commissioners were authorized by law to construct almshouses whenever they deemed it proper, and that plaintiffs cannot assume to be champions of the community to challenge official acts.
“No private person or number of persons can assume to be champions of the community and, in its behalf, challenge the public officers to meet them in a court of justice.”
This 1893 dispute over public spending and the limits of taxpayer authority echoes modern Seattle battles over how the city allocates funds for public welfare and civic infrastructure, pitting commissioners against citizen-led litigation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.