Seattle's Mayor Vetoes Boiler Safety Bill Over a Clerical Error
Mayor J. T. Ronald sends a steam-boiler inspection ordinance back to the House of Delegates because a duplicated section would not survive court—and warns that a $3 inspection fee has already stirred opposition.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE—Gentlemen: I return, without my approval, house of delegates bill No. 20, entitled 'An ordinance regulating the location and use of steam boilers in the city of Seattle, and creating the office of steam boiler inspector for said purpose.'
My objections do not go to the merits of this ordinance, but they rest entirely upon a mistake or error in the committee on engrossment of one or the other houses of the council. As this ordinance, when it becomes a law, will in all probability be tested in the courts, I deem it wise to refer this bill back to you for correction, because in its present shape it will not stand the test of judicial construction.
Owing to an error or oversight in one or the other of the committees on engrossment, there are two sections in the ordinance numbered 'Section Three.' The first one of section three is indefinite and without meaning; the latter part of the section prescribes duties and reiterates a part of section two.
It is a physical impossibility for the boiler inspector to perform the duties prescribed in the first section three. The second section three is the section probably intended to be retained by the council. An examination of this bill will disclose the fact that the entire matter on the third page thereof is in there by a mistake or oversight.
Inasmuch as I am referring this bill back for correction, I desire to suggest to the council that considerable opposition to the ordinance is engendered by the fact that it imposes a tax of three dollars upon every owner of a boiler or boiler plant to have the same inspected, and that this ordinance, being in the interest of the public and for the preservation of life, it would be better that the three dollar tax be placed on owners of the boilers, and the inspection paid for by general public as it is in the same as the bill. This, however, is merely a suggestion rather than an objection on my part, as at the present time I am in favor of the bill and will be glad to approve the same immediately upon its being placed in my hands after this correction by the council.
I deem it due to myself to say that I would rather incur the time for correction than to approve it in its present form and expense and danger of contest, as I deem it an opportunity only for part to kill the entire measure. Yours respectfully, J. T. RONALD, Mayor. Dated October 25, 1892.
“As this ordinance, when it becomes a law, will in all probability be tested in the courts, I deem it wise to refer this bill back to you for correction.”
The argument is recognizably modern: a city tries to regulate a dangerous technology, a fee raises objections, and a drafting error threatens the whole scheme. Seattle's boiler inspectors eventually became part of a broader municipal safety apparatus, but the 1892 message shows how procedural sloppiness can stall public-safety rules.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.