City of Seattle Records

Office of Corporation Councel O Jacobs Corporation Counsel Solon T Williams Assistant Corporation Counsel Seattle, Washington Dec 26th 1891 Committee of Claims of the House of Delegates Gentlemen:- The papers and proceedings as well as the statement of the account of Capt. A M Kent heretofore a member of the Police force of the City of Seattle has been presented to me, and my opinion solicited in regard to this matter. First: This question presents itself to me under two aspects. 1st. did the Chief of Police do right and act legally in dropping from the Police Roster the name of Capt. A M Kent, I amof the opinion that the Chief of Police in the exercise of the powers conferred upon h im, and in the discharge of the important and delicate duties required of him, under the ordinances of the city, and the rules of the Police Department done exactly what his duty required of him, under the ordinance of the City, and the rules of the Police Department done exactly what his duty required him to do in dropping the name of Capt. A M Kent, from the Police Roster, and in the appointment of another person to supply his place. Rules forty-six and forty-eight clearly require that and member of the Police force, who shall be absent from

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

Office of Corporation Councel O Jacobs Corporation Counsel Solon T Williams Assistant Corporation Counsel Seattle, Washington after the expirationof the five days specified in the rules, In the mean time, a substitute had been appointed for A M Kent, and said substitute was in the active discharge of his duties as such, and drawing his salary from the City. The Chief of Police in the month of May, the exact date of which does not appear, duly reported his action in that matter to the Board of Police Commissioners and his action was duly approved by said Board. Now as to whether Capt. A M Kent has a claim in equity, worthy of your consideation is not a question for me to decide. His claim is based on the fact, that he was actually sick- had the City Physician examined him and said City Physician promised to give him a certificate of disability arising from such a sickness, but did not give such certificate before May 31st, 1891, while the disibility occured on May 12th, over half a month prior to that time, and no legal evidence of the fact was ever sent to the Police Department. Capt. Kent was paid up to the time of commencement of his disibility, to-wit for twelve days. he claims for the remainder of the month of May and up to the 17th day of the

Office of Corporation Councel O Jacobs Corporation Counsel Solon T Williams Assistant Corporation Counsel Seattle, Washington month of June, when as I understand it, he by order of the Police Commissioners was dismissed from the force. If it was proper for me to express an opinion, I should say that Capt. Kent have a claim that appeal to the equity of the City Council up to the 1st of June, but that his claim after that time, has neither a legal nor an equitable foundation. This however is a question fro you and not for me. the claim for Seven Dollars and fifty cents for money expended by Capt. Kent from the facts before me, in my jugement is a legal and just claim. Yours Respectfully O Jacobs Corporation Counsel