City of Seattle Records

LYMAN E. KNAPP A. H. FOOTE GEO. E. KNAPP

Knapp, Foote & Knapp LAWYERS

Offices 516, 517 and 518 Seattle National Bank Building

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON May 17, 1894

Hon. W. J. Scott, Corporation Counsel

Dear Sir:

Will you please lay before the City Council the following facts and if it seems to you that justice requires action on its part to give relief will you put the matter in shape for their actions. I speak for myself and Mrs. Caty M. Winchester, a non-resident who own the lots in question jointly.

The facts are as follows, viz: Under Ordinance No 1495 authorizing improvements upon Division Street from Madison to Clarence Streets there was an account to pay expenses already incurred upon, lots 5 to 14, including block 1} Lots 5 to 9 inclusive block 2} Lots 1 to 5 & 16 to 20 inclusive block 7} Young's addition to City of Seattle Lots 1 to 5 & 16 to 20 inclusive block 8} in all 35 lots amounting to the sum of $2226.47 which we paid to the city Treasurer on the 24th day of January 1892.

Soon afterwards it was concluded that the said assessment was illegal and void and further collections thereof were abandoned.

Recently, in order to defray the expenses of the improvements referred to Ordinance No. 3200 and #3268 was passed by the Council providing for an assessment upon property abutting upon the street to the depth of one hundred and twenty feet, and an assessment of $2107.72 was made upon a portion of the above mentioned lots, to wit upon twenty-one lots, as follows:-

7 to 12 inclusive Block 1

(over)

WILLIAM H. SCOTT, Corporate Counsel

FRANK A. STEELE Assistant Corporation Counsel

MELVIN G. WINSTOCK City Attorney

The City of Seattle LAW DEPARTMENT Seattle, Washington Nov. 1, 1894.

Hon. Frank W. Goodhue, Chairman, Committee on Police, License and Revenue, House of Delegates.

Dear sir:--

House of Delegates Bill No. 146, being entitled "An ordinance fixing the license fee for the sale of wholesale and retail of intoxicating liquors for the period of one year from the day of publication hereof," has been refered to me for an opinion as to its legality.

In my judgment it is a bad kind of legislation to provide for the fixing of license fees for any specified time, and might possibly lead to litigation which would be injurious to the rights of the city in collecting the revenue from such sources. This bill does not pretend to amend any portion of the present license law for the sale of liquors, but is an independent ordinance covering the whole subject matter, and by the third section of the same it provides for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict therewith. This provision might be construed by the court as an absolute repeal of the license law as it now exists, and if this ordinance should pass with the provision that its operation should cease at the expiration of one year, then there would be no law upon the subject.

I would not advise the passage of any ordinance of general nature so as to attempt to control subsequent legislation upon the subject; and while I do not say this ordinance should be construed in that way there is a doubt in my mind whether it would not be so construed.

This ordinance does not provide any penalty for violation of any of its provisions, and therefore is not complete, so that a failure to comply with its provisions could be punished.

Yours truly, W. J. Scott, Corporation Counsel