Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-10-20

70 Street Committee.
The petition of X. Merchant & Co for
the privilege of laying = crossing over
Front street was also referred to the
Street Committee.
The communication following was
received from the Mayor;
OyyrcE OF THE MAYOR OF THE
CrrY OF SEATTLE, OCT. ~, lsc3.
To the Common Ccuncll Of the City OF
Seattle-Gentlenen | regret that | am
unable TO convince myself that Ordln-
ance No. - TO amend Ordinance No.
4l0, ought to be approved. and l there
fore return the same without approval.
The ordinance proposes 10 change the
course Of Jackson street, after a CON
tract has been let and Is partly conf
plessd for the improvement of jackson
street as laid out by Ordinances No. 40,
and after over 1900 IN scrip has
been issued for such improvement,
and A large additional liability has been
incurred for such Improvement.
The following IL brief recapItulttio
OF facts necessary to full understand
ing of the situation:
On the 4th day Of June, 1883, the
Council passed an ordinance for the ex-
tension Of Jackson street and the con
demnation of real estate necessary
therefor. The first section of that
ordindance provides that said street
be extended easteriy from the
present eastern terminus thereof al
the eastern boundary of James Nc
Naueht's first addition TO Seattle, to the
west shore pf Lake Washington. The
same section also provided that a strip
90 - -. h1.fx IA n n :
running east and west, be appropriated
for the use of the public as public
street, to be called jackson street. The
other sections OF the ordinance provided
for the manner OF appropriating the
land, the assessment OF damages, and
the levy of tax to pay the same.
sOn the 9th day of July. 1883. ordi-
nance 40 was passed, amending the
| first section of the original ordinances
by changing the eastern terminus from
| the west shore of Lake Washington tc
| the western terminus OF jackson street
| in Burke's second addition to Seattle.
This amendment involved change IL
the direction Of the street by defiec.
ton from the due easterly line adopted
| in the original ordinance. Unfortu-
nateIy the City Attorney, who drew THU
ordinance, inadvertently omitted thu
provision contained in the original or
dinance. appropriating the street as OK
tended to the use of the public as I
public street. This omission ESCAPED
the scrutiny of the committee to whom
it was referred. "a we'll as the Council
and its presiding officer.
In September, 1893, the necessary step
were taken for the appraisement of tn
land appropriated by the appointment
of three Assessors, who have performed
their duty as required by law and b,
the assessment of the damages returned
upon the property in the assessment
district. An ordinance WAS also passed
providing for the improvement of tina
portion of Jackson street SO extende.
by ordinance 40 by grading the Sam
and constructing q sidewalk from tn
east side of Twelfth street to Marke
street. Under this ordinance the Cit
made q contract for this improvement
with G.. N. Alexander, which was ex
ecuted on September q, 1888, aud unde
its provisions the contractor has com
pleted about one-third of the contract
and is entitled to considerable amour
in addition TO the sum already l.aid him
and he is now actively engaged in prose
cutting the work.
In this posture of affairs il is brough
to the attention of the Council and al
legged that Ordinance 4l0 is defectiv
for its intended purpose because
omits the active clause in sectio
IL of the original ordinance. pro
viding for the appropriation o
the street TO the uses of tn
public as a public street. The vita
question to be determined ia whethe
or not this amendatory ordinance ex
tinguishes the positive provisions in tn
original ordinance for the apPropria
ton of the lard by the exercise of tn
right of eminent domain.
| As conceive the law TO be. this ques
ton is certainly not free from doubI
Many rules of construction may be in
voked to preserve the vitality of the oil
dinances. The title o: the original oil
dinance may be- called in aid, and tina
provides in positive terms for the con
domination of real estate necessary 70
the extension of the street. Each o
the other sections of the original ord
nance which remain unrepealed, treat
Of the tract of land therein described a
being unrepealel. And in addition
thereto Section 70 of the city charter re
quires that every ordinance or sectiO
thereof amended shall be repealed, az,
Ordinance No. 40 contains no expires
repeating clause whatever. Therefore
in the absence of an express repealin
clause, the omitted portion not bein
repugnant TO any provisions of Ord
anoe 40 may be allowed to stand and tn
two may be read in poyi materid. Thes
are simple suggestions thrown out with
out consultation with the city legal ad
wiser and may be without merit. But
sntertain no doubt Of the legal propc
: sition that remedial legislation ma
/ be had by curative ordinance and b
q confrmative art Of the Legislator,
now In session, which may have a rel
respective operation and cure any pos
} sible defect in ordinance No. 4l0.
this course il pursued, the serious CON
plications which are now threatening {
entail litigation and possible pecuniar
loss upon the city, may be avoided.
al II on the other hand, should approx
| the ordinance herewith returned, WIS
will DO the consequence? All the pr,
, ceediugs had for the condemnation {
/ land would be vitiated and anaulle,
The ordinance providing for the graz
/ AAIk uAS oCAouu otAcct o. tuou e8ttkpliboc>
woald become imperative a. this ne
} proposed ordinances does not embrae
. the same territory. IL would operai
rs breach of Mr.. Alaxander's COL
tract, because neither be nor the sur
ties on his bond have up 10 this tin
: consented to any modification Of q
, contract, which would be neoessitats
by the change contemplated in this ne
D | ordinance. New proceedings for u
condemnation Of this street v ould hav
TO be instituted; new ASSES ors a
, pointed, new surveys made, ne
assessment rolls and lists proposed an
in fact all acts already perforr
cd, would have TO be re-cor
! menced and completed de soto.
damages sustained by the contract
would have 10 be paid by the City, ~
the City would probably lose all pa
meuts already made. A new Ordinans
for the improvement Of the street Won
have 20 he enacted and neg contra
> entered into. And In all probability, 7
: frsotory propersy owners liable 10 ps
= | taxes foe improvements would take a
vantage of any techuicality to eva,
; the payment of the Improvement IA
, and impose additional burdens TO
q borne BY tho entire people Of the Cit
l 0hi<sh thar onpht NOT IN Ia <>s,r, s,aif..3