991661_Page_22

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 prom-
ised 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
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 prom-
ised 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