City of Seattle Records

Department of Police Seattle, Wash Bolton Rogers Chief Seattle Nov 12 1891 Hon C W Ferris, Comptroller City of Seattle Sir:- In answer to your request for a report on the claim of A M Kent. Ex Patrolman in this Department, for the sum of $100.75-100 I herewith submit the following statement. OnMay the 12th 1891. Partolman A M Kent, failed to report for duty. and up to May the 24th, a period of thriteen ays, I received noreport eother from Kent personally nor the City hysician as to the cause of his absence, and on May 24th, 1891. In accordance with Rules 46 & 48. Police Rules and Regulations of the Plice Department of the City of Seattle his name was dropped from the Police Roster, the Joseph Topping was appointed with the consent of the chairman of the Hon Board of Police Commission to fill the vacancy until the next meeting of the Board.

Department of Police Seattle, Wash Bolton Rogers Chief Seattle Nov June 15 1891 The Hon Board of Police commissioners, Gentlemen:- I have the honor to report the following change in the Police Roster for the Month ending June 15 1891, May 24th, Patrolman A M Kent dropped by virtue of Rules 46&48 Police Regulations. May 25th assignment of Joseph Topping to act as substitute to fill the vacancy made by Kent being dropped May 31st Special Patrolman J W Hendricks, droppedon account of expiration of appointment. June 1st. Substitute Joseph Topping suspended t the request of Commissioner MAnning for conduct unbecoming an officer. June 2nd. assignment of Isaac Toller to act as substitute to fill vacancy created by suspension of substitute Topping.

Transcript of the journal of the proceedings of the Police Commission of the City of Seattle, Pages 103 & 4 -o6-15-91. The Chief submitted a communication stating that he had dropped Patrolman A M Kent from the Police Roster by virtue of Rules 46 & 48 of the Police Rules and Regulations. On motion the action of the Chief was endorsed. Com. Manning voting No. -- The Chief submitted the Following Communicaton. The Hon. B.of P. Com's Gentlemen:- I have the honor to report the following charges in the Police Roster for the month ending June 15th , 1891. -- MAY 24. Patrolman A M Kent dropped by virtue of Rules 46 & 48 Police Reg's -- MAY 25. Assignment of Joseph Topping to act as substitute to fill the vacancy made by Kent being dropped. -- MAY 31. Special Patrolman J W Hendricks dropped on account of

Office of Corporation Councel O Jacobs Corporation Counsel Solon T Williams Assistant Corporation Counsel Seattle, Washington duty, without leave for the term of five days, shall, at the expiration of said five days, cease to be a member of the Police force, rule forty-six, however provides, that in the case of sickness of a memver of the Police force, when properly set apart by the city Physician, that the results stated in rule forty-eight shall not take place. Under these rules of which Mr. Kent as a member of the Police force is presumed to have full notice and knowledge, it was his duty, if disabled by sickness to perform his duty as a policeman, to notify the chief of Police by a certificate of the city Physician that he was sick and unable to perform his duty, and such notice must be filed at Police Headquarters, with in five days after such disability or sickness commenced. This is a reasonable and necessary requirement. It would not do for the chief of Police to act on the verbal representation sent to him, if any, of the disability by sickness of any of his force. the law, as well as the rules of the Police department require a certain kind of testimony in such cases, and that with the certificate of the City Physician of the disability created by sickness. It was the imperative duty of Mr. Kent, so far as the

Office of Corporation Councel O Jacobs Corporation Counsel Solon T Williams Assistant Corporation Counsel Seattle, Washington dismissal was concerned, if he desired to prevent it, to have such ceretificate on file at Police Headquarters. The want of it, not only justifies but made it the imperative duty of the chief of Police to drop him from the roster. these rules are made in the interest of economy and their enforcement by the chief of Police is a matter of the first importance to the City. Without such enforcement it will often happen that two or more persons drawing salaries for one and the same duty, as is claimed in this case and as has been claimed in several other cases which have come under my observation. Under this phase of the case then, so fas as Chief Roger's is concerned, I can but say that in the dismissal of Capt. Kent he was acting in the absence of any legal evidence of the disablilty by sickness of Mr. A M Kent, in the strict and intelligent discharge of his duties in that regard, but, Secondly, Capt, Kent's claims thathe applied to the City Physician immediatly at the commencement of his disablilty for a certificate - that said Physician examined his and promised to give him such a certificate, but said City Physician never filed any such certificate, at the Headquarters of the Police department, until the 31st of May AD 1891, long