The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-02-17
HIGH LICENSE WINS.
Fee Raised From $500 to 81, 900
for Liquor Selling.
a VERY IMPORTANT OPINION.
Judge Jacobs Considers the City Liable
for Condemnation Costs
Routine Business.


meeting. The delegates were in regular
session, and the aldermen attended as
matter of convenience, the only absentee
being Mr. Bogardus. The franchise was
for car line on Rainier avenue. There
were only two bids, one by Mr.. ]. r. Bur-
rell, Of the Rainier Railroad Company, Of
fering $780, and one by T, Il. Fleming, Of
fering $780,
Alderman Miller moved that both bids
be rejected. Delegate Willis seconded and
Delegate Bagley remarked that it looked as
if both bids were prepared by the same
typewriter. Mr.. Kittinger moved that
the higher bid be accepted.
On motion of Mr.. Pontius the whole
matter was referred to joint committee
and Delegates Hanford and Miller.
The aldermen withdrew and the regular
business Of the house proceeded.
IMPORTANT OPINION.
A very important opinion was rendered
by Judge Jacobs in which he declares that
all compensation under condemnation pro-
ceedings must be paid for by the city, and
rs any expense now incurred would be in
excess of the 1lla per cent. unit he advises
canceiling all ordinances for grading
streets where such proceedings were neces-
sary. 1t is as follows:
After thorough examination OF the provisions
Of the charter. have come to the conclusion
that all property, including streets condemned
for corporate uses. must 10 paid for by the city
of Seattle, ana that local assessment districts
cannot be created to pay for such property. 1t
is not necessary for me 10 state at this time the
reasons that led 10 such a conclusion. have
been investigating the matter for some consider
able time. The point is not entirely clear under
the provisions OF the charter. but the conclusion
which have reached Is the most satisfactory de-
duction that can make from careful consd-
Grafton of all the provisions of the charter per-
tanning to that matter This being
the conclusion then that have come to, as the
city is largely in debt beyond 1 per cent. of its
assessed valuation, as shown by the last assess
ment, cannot recommend an increase OF this
indebtedness for any cause: such Indebtedness
Is clearly Invalid and illegal. Hence, ] would
recommend to yon the repeal OF the ordinance
for the opening OF Main street and the rescind-
ing Of all the proceedings had under that ordi-
nance. would also recommend the repeal of
the ordinance providing for the extension of
Mulford street to Madison street and the rescind-
ing of all the proceedings taken hereunder.
herewith send you two ordinances drawn up
In accordance with this opinion.
IMPEACHMENT OF OFFICERS
The following letter was read from the
corporation council:
In answer to your request to inform the house
of delegates what power the city council has in
regard 70 removals from office OF both elective
and appointiye officers, and whether the council
can remove any officer unless the mayor will act
by first suspcnding him, and what notices and
proceedings are necessary. answer:
First-As to elective officers. section IL of ar
tice 5 of the charter states how the mayor may
be removed from Office, and for what cause and
prescribcs the mode OF procedure to be adopted
specify what shall be done and the mode of pro-
cedure Ill case OF the suspension by the mayor
and removal by the council of other elective Of
ficers. The plan In brief, as will be seen by an
examination OF the sections referred to, is this:
In the case OF the mayor, he can be removed
for wiilful violation OF his duties during his
or misdemeanOr involving moral turpitude;
notice must be given him, and copy of the
charges against him must be served upon him,
and then he is tried on those charges by the
joint convention at the board of aldermen and
house OF delegates. In the case of the removal
OF any other elective officer, he must first be sus
filed against him by the mayor upon infOrlna-
ton or belief or actual knowledge, then the said
officer is to be tried by the joint convention of
the two houses assembled as court of impeach-
mcnt, in which court evidence for the substan-
tiation of the charges may be received and 8so
evidence in defence of the party accused; the
president OF the board of aldermen is the pre-
siding officer of said court Of impeachment In
my Judgment, before any elective officer can be
suspended by the mayor the mayor must either
know of his own knowledge cause for
such suspension or charges ought TO be filed
with the mayor and proofs submitted Of a
character to satisfy the mayor that the charges
arc true, or that there is probable cause for be-
leviug them to be true: If so, it becomes the
duty OF the mayor to suspend the officer and
prefer charges against him before the city couu-
ell; the power To suspend is given to the mayor,
the power to remove IS given to the city council,
aud no removal can be legally made of such
elective officer by any other authority than the
city council
second There are certain boards created by
the charter, and the number of individuals COM
posing the boards and the powers which they
possess and the mode of their appointment are
all fixed by the charter In my Judgment, the
mayor has the appointing power in the same
sense that the president Of the United states has
the appointing OF large multitude of officers,
aud that the mayor alone possesses the power of
removal: the mere fact that the board OF alder
men, as In the case OF the Senate of the United
States, confirms these appointments does not
take away from the mayor the right of suspen-
sion or removal. If he suspends any
preep charges % these 1card ha he should
suspended 10 the proper board and the member
OF the board suspended should have a trial by
board should find upon an examination that
there was cause for the removal of the men,
Der accused the mayor ought to remove him and
nominate his successor 10 the board of alder
men. In my Judgment the mayor has full power
OF removal. and he could exercise that power
If he saw nc TO do SO without any trial of the
accused before such board; and even il the
board upon examination should determine that
there cause for removal, think the
mayor could still, II he saw tit to do SO, remove
the officer.
Thrd-Each OF these boards has the appoint
rent of a large number of subordinate officers
II Is the duty OF a board establishing any subor.
dinate bureau or appointing any subordinate
officer to see 20 it that such bureau or officer
faithfully performs the duties imposed upon
such bureau or officer by the charter or any or
dinance OF the city, and If any such subordinate
officer willfutiy neglects to discharge
his duties, as required by the charter or ordi-
nanees Of the city, the board appointing him has
the power to remove him: there are also causes
other than the neglect of duty hich would au-
fhorize the board TO remove such subordinate
ofhcer. Regularly, charges ought to be made to
the board appointing him, and those charges in
vestcated before removal should be made.
With this general statement, answer your re-
quest by saying that no elective officer can be
removed without y trial upon charges preferred,
and that said trial must be by the city council
assembled together in joint convention as a
court OF impeachment: before such trial such
officer must be Suspended by the mayor. In the
case OF members of boards, they can be eus-
pended or removed for cause by the mayor, and
q. is his duty 10 do SO W heneyer there is willful
or gross neglect of duty or a conviction of a
crime or misdeneanor. In my judgment the
mayor ought TO take the course have indicated
above before final removal. In the ease of sub
ordinate oficers appointed by the several boards,
rs the chief of police. captains. iientenauts and
patroimen OF that force. they can be removed
Tor wllltul neglect OF duty or any conduct that
renders them unfit to hold the office. by the
hoard which appointed them. In nv opinion
the city council can not remove elective of
heer except as prescribed above: that is, there
must first be suspension by the mayor. the pre-
fcrrirg of charges before the city council trisl
by the city council, aud If the charges are sus-
tanned motion TO remove NAV then be made
u the mayor should refnse TO act in plain case
either pertaining 10 an elective or appointiye OF.
ncer who has been guilty of conduct that re-
qIires his removal, then the mayor himself
should be impeached by the city council