*1 709 July 7, 28619. En Banc. 1942.] [No. Department al., Respondents, of The M. et v.

Dennison Halsell Security al., Appellants.1 et Social Attorney General, Gallagher, Finley, and Pat The Phil H. R. C. Guimont, Assistants, appellants. for Morgan, respondents. F. for L. Beals, Mary Halsell, J. Dennison M. Halsell and J. husband wife, old-age and were the beneficiaries of assistance from the Washington 1940, prior 5,

state of for some time to December on which date 141 initiative was effective. Mr. and Halsell Mrs. department were, by security the of of the social state of Wash- ington, applicants grants considered as senior under for citizens act, Grays county department the and the Harbor welfare recom- grant mended that a be made to Mr. in Halsell the amount of thirty per month, grant dollars a and that similar made in be recipients, being favor of Mrs. Halsell. The dissatisfied with the county department, requested of recommendation the welfare a hearing hearing department, fair before the director of the which granted testimony writing. upon was and the reduced to Based made, 19, the record so the director rendered his decision June 1941, affirming county department, the action of the welfare and awarding grant recipient thirty a to each in the amount of dollars per Feeling aggrieved by director, month. the of decision the the recipients appealed superior court, to the where the matter was upon department, heard the record made before the no new evi- having by party. dence offered been either It admitted that was Mr. and Mrs. Halsell were husband and they together wife, they and that resided in a home which owned. upon facts, department Based this of state the deducted from grant forty recipient the normal of dollars toas each sum the of ownership of seven dollars because home and the sum three of living, of dollars because combined all in accordance the with policy department. the established of The trial court found stated, but, law, to the facts be as above of con- as matter by department cluded that the deductions made the the from forty per dollars month were made in violation of 141 initiative chapter 1, 1941, p. (Laws 3, Supp. seq.) 1941 Rem. 9998-34 et §

710 law, In the court entered its accordance with the conclusions of remanding department, proceeding decree to direc- the the with eliminating by to the deduc- tions revise the therefrom awards *2 department of tions above referred From this decree the to.. security Washington appealed to this social of the state of has court. assigned upon is re- Error the court’s conclusion of law above to; upon portion to fix ferred that the which undertakes of decree grant by department the the to each amount of the to made be recipient; upon entry respondents’ the in favor. and the of decree evidently opinion The trial the court was of the that deductions by to, director, in referred not accordance above made the were strenuously Respondents provisions the1 with of initiative 141. grants pursuant must be made contend that to initiative 141 strictly act, regard any to Federal in with that without accordance concerning by leaving questions statute, any and the continuance matching government payment to funds the the Federal of the of may questions state to be as such arise. determined respondents’ question contrary to We have determined this opinion cases of As in.our in the consolidated contention. stated 156, (2d) Morgan Department Security, p. v. ante 127 P. Social of by 686, are 141 its terms must be we convinced that initiative own statute, with and that certain construed in connection the Federal provisions harmony Federal of the state statute are not in with the disregarded. and laws must be Depart- Burgdorf cited, of the and also in the case v. In case 209, (2d) 709, Security, p. ante have Social 127 P. we de- ment of questions presented bar, and all in the case at in termined the judgment appealed cited, is cases the from with the accordance judgment affirming reversed, order enter the with instructions to department. of the J., Main, Steinert, Jeffers, C. Robinson, Blake, Driver, and JJ., concur. (dissenting) Simpson, J., for and J. dissent the Millard, —We Morgan dissenting Depart- opinions announced in our in v. reasons 156, (2d) Security, p. P. 686. ment Social ante 127 of