Olympia’s Fight Over Who Should Judge the Cities

Olympia, March 6.—Special. In the House tonight Tull’s bill to abolish the office of municipal judge was discussed on its second reading. Nims of Spokane offered an amendment providing that the office shall not be abolished until the term of the present municipal judges expires. In support of his amendment Nims said that the Spokane council favored his proposition.

Gandy and Tull, of Spokane, contended that the people of Spokane want the office abolished in view of economy. Nelson of Spokane offered a substitute that the act should take effect January 1, 1897. Nelson said he was opposed to legislating good men out of office. Gandy was willing to compromise and support the substitute.

Albertson of King County could not support the substitute. As chairman of the committee to which the bill was referred, he had given the three municipal authorities of the state—Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane—notice to appear before it and explain why the bill should not pass. After a thorough investigation and hearing of parties for and against the measure, the committee unanimously believed the bill abolishing the office should pass, and the work be performed by justices of the peace. The council of the city of Seattle had unanimously adopted a memorial for the abolition of the office.

Baker of King County said he knew the council of Tacoma was unanimously in favor of retaining the municipal court, and read a telegram from City Attorney Wickersham denying that he favored its abolition. He therefore moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed. Albertson arose to a question of personal privilege and vigorously resented the imputation that he had misrepresented Wickersham. His recollection was positive and distinct that Wickersham had spoken before the committee in favor of abolition. After further debate, Baker’s motion to postpone indefinitely was lost by a vote of 17 to [—]. The bill then went over until tomorrow.