Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 37-BP Pp`�� ' 1 Be aA�t -Gent164-en of the City _Council: As you will recall upon the occas'on several weeks ago when the city fire marshal filed with you a re ort showing the con demnation o' certain property on Pearl street, oned by the C. C. Caswell estate-, because in his judgment the said property consti- tuted a fire hazard, I informed the council that I would not act upon ; the appeal in that case nor in any other similar case of condemnation w� proceedings until a full and complete investigation of the properties f in. question had been made by myself, the fire marshal, the building ' ' inspector and the chief of the -fire department, and that it would be my purpose to see that all owners of propetty subject to condemna- tion were treated alike. Carrying out this purpose, and for the further protection of the property owner and in order that the fullest sort of evidence in such -cases might be presented, I asked the state fire marshal to make an inspection of buildings within the business district of the e.+i,ty_ of Beaumont, such inspection to be in addition to that made lo- cally. Mro T. F. Baker,, chief inspector for the.state fire marshal."s office., was sent. to . this city and made an inspection of all the buildings in question, thich were also inspected by myself, the city fire marshal, the city building inspector, and the chief and,assistant chief of the local fire department. I have in hand the reports of all of the inspections thus made, which are hereto attached. These reports show a,concurrence of opinion of the state fire .marshal with that of the local fire marshal and the other city employes taking part in such inspection,. which was in every detail exhaustive-, and made with-through-regard.to the laws and ordinances bearing upon the matter. Following this joint inspection on the part of both the city and the state authorities, the city fire marshal, acting under the authority given to him by the charter, has issued oondemnation notices for the removal of the following buildings, all constitating, withiii his judgnIeIa'c Viand tl t o:7 the, state inspector, extraordinar�% �.i_re hazards: 6439 653 and 657 Pearl street, lot 71, block 13, original to,,qn.of Beaumont. Owner: C. C. Caswell estate. 1 526a-544 Pearl street; north half of•lote 216. and 217, and west 25x60 feet of lot 215, block 41, original town of Beaumont. Owner: A. Delauneo 226,'245 and 256Pearlstreet, lot 119, block 17, original � town of Beaumont. Owner: Lorenzo Wiess estate; B. 1Deutser, . OAAP � 736, 736 1/2 Pearl street, lot -195, block 39, original' town of Beaumont. Owner: A. Simon. ----Pearl street, next door to above, same owner. ORLEANS STREET Corner Orleans and Liberty, in 300 blocke lot 243, block 43 original town -of Beaumont. Owner: Goodhue estate. 309 Orleans, lot 243, block 43, original town of -Beaumont. Owner: A;. J. Vinoek. , 450, 452 Orleans, lot 350, block 52, Beaumont Addition. Owner: Orleans Realty Company. 702,.746,-750 Orleans; lote.313 and,314, original town of Beaumont. Owner: Tyrrell -Wilson Investment company. 7549 760 Orleans, lot 316, block 49, original town of Beaumont. Owner: Mrs. A..B. Gober. 772 t.o•779 Orleans. Lot 30.5, block 49, original town of, Beaumont. Mrs. Hal H. Branham, owner. AMAIN STREET 382 Main street, lot 97, block 16, original.town of Beau- mont. Owner, B..Deutser. 4089 4169 420 and 426 Tevis street, corner Vain; lot 686 and one-half lot 687, original town of Beaumont., Owner: Elks' lodge, John W. Fulbright, exalted ruler. 609, 623, 635, 6459 659 and 669 Main street; lots 6099 612, 613 .and 614 original --town- of Beaumont. - Owner: Mrs. S. P. Selly. Buildings located on lots.579 and A block -7, original town of Beaumont, "at -Mains Cypress and Fors;a .streets.. er: C. C. Caswell estate.''"�_,� �. 690 Dain street, lot 61, block l , original town of Beaumont® Owner: N.- C. Tyrrell. PARK STREET 444 and 480 North Park, lots 11 and 12, block 17 of Van dormer addition. ,Owner: Stedman /Fruit company. Rear of `497 Crockett Con Park street), lot 744, block 52, original tovm of Beaumont. Owner: Ed. Cherry. CROCKETT STREET. Rear of 461 Crockett-, lot 3461, block 52. .Own.er: Severt estate. 'BOWIE STREET 461, to 473 Bowie. street, lot 335, block 51, original :town - of Beaumont. Omer: Max Feinberg. 487, 495, 497 Bowie street, lot 334, block 51, original' town of Beaumont© Owner: C. C. Caswell estate. FORSYTHE STREET 3499. 351 and 353 Forsythe street, lot 191, block 39, original town of Beaumont. Owner;: Jefferson lodge No. 55, .Knights of Pythias., Rear of 351 Forsythe street,; lot 195, block 39�, original y town off Beaumont. Owner: A.. Simon. 375 Forsythe s.:r�eet, lots 189 and 190, block 39, original town of Beaumont. Ag tsj�lE*vlar S- 395 and,3 Fj�n rjrspthe, a=s frame shed on lots same as::_ above, same agents. ` 423 and 427 Forsythe street, lots 313 -and 314, block 49, s f 1 ww3w original town of Beaumont. Tyrrell -Wilson Investment Company,. owners. 483 Forsythe street, Ikk east third of west half'lot 311, block 49, original town of Beaumont. Owner: A. N. Adamse, 490., 492 Forsythe street, lot 321, block 50, original town of Beaumont. Owner: R. L. Cartwright. 480,:488 and 488 1/2 Forsythe street, lot 319, block 50,. original town of Beaumont. Owner: Elmo Willard. 347 Forsythe street, half'of lots 192 and 193, block 39, original town of Beaumont.�Owner: Josey -Miller Company. All of the above named property is comprised of frame structures in a dilapidated and dangerous condition, constituting in some instances danger to the occupants as well as a fire hazard to adjacent buildings:.. In the attached reports of 'doth the local and state inspectors will be found data covering the condition of each individual building ordered torn down and removed. It will be observed: also, that in no case was a condemnation order issued except where each of the inspectors concurred in their recommendations to that effect° Not alone did the state and local fire marshals agree, but their reports are in every instance corroborated'by'those of the city building inspector and of the chief of the fire departemtn. Commenting upon the conditions his inspector found in this city, with especial reference'to the buildings above itemized, the state fire marshal under date of August 7, wrote me: , "Herewith we are'handing.you report of our inspection on Pertain buildings, situated within the fire limits of Beaumont, and which, x# in our opinion, fall within the description of section -9 of the state insurance commission law and may be classed as dangerous fire hazards and unsafe to both life and property. "Under the heading of CORDITION in these reports we have not attempted to go into detail with respect to the exact condition of each portion of the building, but have co 1v??:L- ourselves, in the main to the language '. , guage used in the statute; that is to say after, a general inspection we reached the conclusion that the buildings by reason of age and dilapidated condition are especially liable to . fire and insomeinstances they are so situated as to endanger other yp. r Q,�,, ext V a..`rit7_ are ei 1 n 'ouch' .� ro ty i� e n Yl P-1 C a ,� � ��� � `t `'- � �{- � a �'' lV -•'(1 (:�,..�= a Calc) 'v` v" u "cl the occupants therein. "Our recommendations.also follow the only remedy offered, and that is that buildings in such condition should be removed. "It is our understanding that_the _fire _ _preven- tion code -,of the city of Beaumont contains a protrision almost identi- cal with that of the state law. This being the case, the state law may be considered cumulative of the city's.code and may be jointly enforced in the event of necessity. "Very truly yours, S. IT. INGLISH, State Fire Marshal." That portion of the state fire insurance law': having bearing upon this matter is contained in section 9, which, after delegating 'to the state fire marshal and his agents the right of entry upon any property for purposes of inspection, says: Whenever he shall find any building or other structure which, for want of repair or by reason of age or dilapidated condition, or.which for any cause is liable to fire, and which is so --4-- situated as to'endanger other buildings or property, or is so occupied that fire would endanger persons or property therein, and whenever he shall find an improper and dangerous arrangement of stoves, ranges furnaces or other heating appliances of any kind whatsoever, including chimneys, flues and pipes with which the same may be connected, or danger-ous arrangement of lighting systems or devices, ora danger- ous storage of explosives, compounds, petroleum, gasolene, kerosene, dangerous°chemicals, vegetable products, ashes, oombustible,,inflam- mable and refuse materials; or other conditions which may be dangerous in character, or liable to cause or promote fire, or create conditions dangerous to firemen or occupants, he shall order the same removed or remedied, and such order shall be forthwith complied_.with-by the occu- pant or -owner of such building or-premises,'and the state fire marshal is" hereby -authorized, when necessary, tomapply to a- court of competent jurisdiction for the necessary writs or orders to enforce the provisions of this section, and in such cases he shall not be required to give .bond. (Acts of -1917). As will be seen from the letter of the state fire marshal, he has proceeded under this section,y'which is cumulative of the city code, and has recommended that the buildings in question be torn down, as "the only remedy offered" under the conditions which his inspection ' revealed. Article 283 of.the charter and ordinances of the -city of Beaumont, governing the duties of the city fire marshal, is identical in language with that of section 9 of t he state law, except for the following addition thereto:. Provided,,however, that if the said owner or occupant (upon whom an order .of condemnation has been served) deems'. himself aggrived by such order ,he may within twentpr four hours appeal to the mayor of the . city of Beaumont, such appeal to be written, who shall investigate the cause 'of the complaint, and unless by his au- thority the order is revoked, suoh .order shall remain in force - and be forthwith complied with by such owner or occupant. Any owner or occu- pant. of such buildings or premises failing to comply with the authori- ties above specified, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction in the corporation court, shall be fined in any sum not less than,05.00 nor more than 0100000, each day's neglect to be a separate and distinct offense." Proceeding, as stated, under the above section, the city fire marshal has given due and proper notice of the order for removal of the buildings specified, such notice calling attention to the fact -that--the -owner-- or- occupant- of any building-, feeling himself "aggrived, may appeal to the mayor, as provided in article_283e In anticipation of -the fact that appeals would be made to me against the decision of the fire marshal,,I personally accompanied the city's inspectors when the premises indicated in this report were inspected, and thoroughly familiarized myself,with the details embodied in the reports I am submitting to you., Therefore I have been in a'position to pass immediately upon such of the cases as h e'k:. been appealed to me within the twenty -lour limit provided by law. However, while I concur fully'in the action of the fire marshal, I am aware of the fact that some hardship would be worked upon tenants of the buildings condemned were their removal I demnaded at once. 611' or nearly all of, these structures are occulp ed by one or another sort of business, some of these' establsihmen.ts having been thus located for years, and in passing upon the appeals from the .condemnation orders I have borne this fact in mind. I have further realized the difficulties in procuring labor, and in cases where it would be the owner's desire to replace the dilapidated structures with new buildings, of construction materials. Having gone thus fully into the details of the case I have granted to each of the property -owners affected by the condemnation orders a period of ninety days fron August 19, 1919, in rich to comply therewith, believing that in that time the tenants will have had opportunity to make other arrangements, and the procure the necessary labor for removal. This extension of time, granted under the authority given me by section 2839 charter and ordinances, will expi pine on November 10, 1919s, by or before which time it is required that the orders of the fire marshal be complied with. I -cdeem it but fair to the affected property owners to state that.it is my intention, in the event'of nonecomplianae, to invoke all needful processes of law on the part of the city, together with the full assistance and co-operation of the state fire marshal and the state 's legal xxtk3mt authorities, to the end that the buildings complained of may be removed, thus removing a menace to the city's safety and welfare - it is my request that this report and the action noted therein -be --fiZed---and made. a_ part of the city records. Respectfully submitted, ' -- - Mayor. P Beaumont, Texas, September 30th, 1920. Honorables B. A. Steinhagen, i;layor, J. B: Swonger, and Tom Lamb, Commissioners, C i t Y. Gentl emen : - Complying with your request that I file with you an opinion as to the City's power to condemn and order razed or removed buildings in the City commonly referred to as "shacks", when found to be in such condition as are dangerous to life and property, and as to whether the City in such case would be com- pelled to compensate the owner therefor, :I submit the following as my opinion: The City has the power, under the police power of the State duly delegated to it, to order the razing or removal, and where such order is not complied with, to punish for non-compliance, and in addition to itself raze or remove or cause to be razed or removed, at -the expense.of the City on the account of the owner of the property or premises, and assess the expense on the land on which it stood,.or to which it was attached; and in such case the city^to compensa-e the owner therefor. Unquestionably, when any citizen's property is taken for the. public use-, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, due compensation must in all cases be paid therefor; but there is a wide and fundamen- tal distinction between the taking of property, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain where compensa- tion to the owner is required, and the -abatement of nuisances for the protection of the life, limb, health, comfort and property of the public, in the exercise of the police power. To condemn and take property in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without compen- sation is the taking of property without due process of law, which is in violation of both the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Texas; but the abatement of n-Uisances dangerous. to the public health, morals, comfort, and life and limb and the property of the public, by exercising the police power of the State, is in itself "due process of law", and has been referred to by the Supreme gourt of the United States and by the highest courts of many of the states as a "law of overruling necessity", and "not of constitutional origin or grant, but is rather institutional and vital." The statutes, among other powers granted to cities and towns, are as follows: "Art. 844.- Iiay Define Nuisances and Punish Persons Guilty Thereof, etc. To abate and remove nuisances and punish the authors thereof by penalties, fine and imprisonment, and to define and declare what shall be nuisances ' and authorize and direct the summary abatement thereof." "Art. 845.- May Abate Nuisances.- To abate all nuisances which may injureor affect the public health or comfort, in any manner they may deem expedient." Art. 856.- City Council L2ay Cause Dangerous Buildings, etc. to be Removed.- Whenever, 7n the opinion of the City Council, any building, fence, shed, awning or any /d aXv-442 erection of any kind or any part thereof is liable to fall down and endanger persons pr property, they may order .any owner or agent of the same, or any owner or occupant of the premisds on which such building, shed, awning or other erection stands or to which it is attached, to take down and remove the same, or any part thereof, within such time as they may direct;. and to punish by fine and imprisonment, or either, any neglect, failure or refusal to comply therewith. The city council shall, in addition, have the power to remove the same at the expense of the city, on account of the owner of the property or premises, and assess the expenses on the land on which it stood or to which it was attached, and shall, by ordinance, provide for such assessment, the'mode and manner of giving notice and the means of recovering any such expenses." "Article 1096-d.- - - - - - - that each city shall have the _power to define all nuisances and prohibit the same within the city, and outside the city limits for a distance of 5000 feet - - - - - - " rr to provide for the establishment and designation of fire limits, and to prescribe the kind and character of building or structures or improvements to be erected thereon, and to provide for the erection of fire -proof buildings within the city limits, and to provide for the condemnation of dangerous structures or buildings, or dilapidated buildings or buildings calculated to ---increase the fire hazard, and the manner of their removal or destruction. - - - - - " to enforce all ordinances necessary to protect health, life and property, and to prevent and summarily abate and remove all nuisances, and to preserve and enforce the good government, order and security of the city and -its' inhabitants - - - - - - " The provisions of the city charter with reference to this matter, both general and specific, are as follows, towi t : Sub -section 2 of.Section 5, page 6, reads as follows: " Shall have the power to enact and to enforce ordinances necessary to pro-�ect health, life and property, and to prevent and summarily abate and remove nuisances, and to preserve and enforce the good government, order and security of the city and its inhabitants; to protect the lives, health and property of the inhabitants of said ci-ty Sub-section,31 of Section 6, page 10: " To define what shall be nuisances in the. city and within 5000 feet of the corporation lines outside of the city limits, and to abate such nuisances by summary proceedings and to punish the authors thereof by penalties, fines and imprisonment." Sub -section 1 of Section 7, page 11: "To provide means for protection against the extinguishment of fires - - and for th-e purpose of guarding against the calamity of fire, may prescribe fire limits and may regulate or prohibit the erection, building, placing or repairing of wooden buildings within such limits in the city as may be designated and prescribed as fire limits, and may also prohibit the removal or Putting up of any wooden buildings from without said limits, k • t� o'4�.ee.a"r � i � and may also prohibit the removal of any wooden buildings from'one place to another within said limits, - - - and may declare all dilapidated, unsubstantial and improperly constructed buildings to be nuisances and direct the ,same to be repaired, removed or ,abated, in such manner as the city commission may prescribe, and may prohibit and prevent the erection of such buildings, and may declare - all wooden buildings in the fire limitz which they deem dangerous to contiguous buildings or which may cause or promote fires to be nuisances, and may require and cause the same to be removed in such manner as may be prescribed, at the expense of the owners - - - - - - - - provided,- however, that the city commission may, if in their judgment justice requires, pay to the owner or owners of such property a reasonable sum for damages or compensation, to be fixed by the commission." Sub -section 4 of Section 8, page 13; "To authorize by ordinance the destroying of clothing, bedding, furniture and buildings infected with the germs of any infectious or dangerous diseases, when the public health requires the destruction of the same, and may also in the same manner authorize the destruction or removal of buildings or other objects, after the same shall have been declared a nuisance or to be dangerous to the he.alth or lives of the cttieens of said city"- subject to the proviso.in SLib-sac.tion_1 of. Section 7.hereof.,..(the quotation immediately preceding.) The foregoing, statutory p,nd . chdrter provisions, and similar provisions, have been many times passed upon by the courts. I take it that it is not necessary to review all of the cases. I will use one case directly in point, wherein the decision of the court is clear, compre4ensive and exhaustive. I refer to the case of Crossman et al vs the City of Galveston et al, determined in 1918. That was a "shack" removal case The charter and ordinances of the City of Galveston on the subject were very similar and were no.more liberal than ours. In 1914 the committee appointed by the city commissioners for the purpose, after anexamination and inspection of the building in question, made their report to the Commissioners that the building was an ufsanitary nuisance and dangerous fire hazard, and a nuisance to the public; whereupon the commissioners cited the owners to appear before them to show cause, if any they had, why the building should not be condemned as._a nuisance_ and removed. The owners appeared before the commissioners and asked for an extension of time in which to remove the building and action was deferred indefinitely. In 1916 the commissioners took the matter up again and cited the owners to appear and show cause, if any they had, why the building should not be declared a nuisance and removed. The owners filed "their answer in reply and among other things said that the building was located on the premises prior to the enactment of the ordinance covering the matter, or any other ordinance on' the books; that the building had been damaged by the hurricane in 1915 and the owners desired to repair the same, -_:`9t a cost of one thousand (1000.00) dollars and upwards, and asked for a permit to do so; and they further replied,by denymng that the building was a nuisance or dangerous to public health or safety, denied the right of the city to order it taken down or removed, on the ground that the improvements were valuable property and were out of repair on account of the storm; that to take down and remove the building would entail a heavy loss, more than $3000.00, and the cost of repair wouldbe only. one-third thereof, and that to refuse the permit to repair, and to tear down and remove said property would amount to a taking of said property without due process of law, which .would be illegal and not within the city's power. On a hearing of the matter in 1916 the commissioners found and declared that the building was in a dilapidated condition on account of age, use and -lack of attention; that'its condition was unsanitary and dangerous to persons living and going ,therein; that it constituted a dangerous fire risk and was a source of danger to adjoining buildings, and that by reason of its said condition was a nuisance. Upon that finding and declaration the commissioners refused to grant the permit to repair and entered an order that the building be taken down and removed as a nuisance. The owners then filed suit against the commissioners, praying for writ of injunction to restrain them from in any manner demolishing or interfering with the building, and for a writ of mandamus to compel the commissioners to grant the permit to repair. They alleged, among other things, that the building was erected prior to the. adoption of the then present or any other ordinance of the city dealing with the subject; that the ordinances as applied to said building were in violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that: "No person shall be - - - deprived of property without due process of law; now shall private property be taken- for public use without just compensation. "- And that the ordinance was also in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, which provides: "Nor shall any state deprive any person - of property without due process of `law;. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal. protection of the law." They also alleged that the ordinances�-.were illegal, unraasonable, discriminatory and void, in that they were prohibitive aria delegated:; to the commissioners of the city of Galveston the power to arbitrarily grant or refuse permits for the repair of wooden buildings, and did not lay down any rule of proportion or otherwise, by which the owners and others could determine what amount of injury or what other circumstances would preclude repairs and which would enable persons affected by it to know their rights and liabilities, or any rule of limitation as to the power of said board of commissioners in respect thereto; that they had made proper application for a permit to repair, and that their application hd been wantonly, unreasonably and arbitrarily refused, and that such refusal was an -illegal, discriminatory, and oppressive exercise of the power conferred on'said commissioners by the charter and ordinances of the City. said: The commissioners in reply, among other things, "Defendants and each of them say that the premises described in said petition are located within the fire limits of the City of. Galveston and axe frame buildings, and that said building is a nuisance and a fire hazard and dangerous to the citizens and property in the City of Galveston, and that in drdering : said building to be removed and said nuisance abated said board of commissioners at all times acted within their authority and in accordance with the charter and ordinances of the City of Galveston and in the exercise of their duties as members of the board of commissioners of the City of Galveston, and in so doing were discharging the duties and exercising the discretion imposed upon them by virtue of their said office." Thus the issue- precisely the issue which confronts you in your "shack" situations was squarely drawn. At the trial of the cause before a jury the court, after hearing; the pleadings read and the evidence adduced, instructed the jury to return a.verdict in favor of the city, and the jury having done so, judgment was rendered in favor of the city. From this judgment the owners of the building appealed. In the higher court the owners contended that the trial court erred in instructing a verdict for the city and in refusing their application for injunction, because the proceedings of the commissioners condemning their building and ordering its removal were illegal, inoperative and void and not binding upon them; that the power conferred by the city charter and ordinances upon the commissioners, and the proceedings thereunder, were void and inoperative, unless the building was in fact a nuisance; because the pleadings and the evidence reised an issue of fact as to whether said building constituted a nuisance and therefore it was the duty of the court to submit such issue to the jury. The appellate court starts out by stating their understanding of the contention of the owners as follows: "We understand the contentions of appellants to be that while it is true that when buildings, or 'structures are erected within the fire limits of the City of Galveston, of such material and in such manner as is forbidden -by the ordinances of such city, after such fire limits have been established, such buildings or structures are nuisances Ter se and may be declared such and removed from within such limits by the proper authorities; but if such buildings or structures are erected prior to the establishing of such fire limits they are not nuisancne. per se, and that in the latter case the board of commissioners have no power, either under the express grant of power, conferred by the charter of the city, or by virtue of the regulations provided in Section 241 of the ctty ordinances to determine and declare such building. a nuisance, even after a full. and fair hearing of the facts with reference to its condition; that the courts alone have the power to determine whether in fact such building would constitute a nuisance." After the court had thus stated their un er- standing of the contention of the owners, they proceedWto answer the contention as follows: "We think, the board of commissioners were clothed with the power to adopt Section 241 of the city ordinances and that the action of the board taken under said ordinance with reference to the removal of appallants' building wasa proper exercise of the powers conferred upon them by such ordinances. The mere fact that by Section 241 of the ordinance the board of commissioners declared, among other provisions thereof, that all buildings which shall from age. neglect or other causes become dilapidated shall be and are declared a nuisance does not invalidate the further provision prescribing -the manner of procedure for a determination /0 _�6 1 /� authorizes the taking of private property without due process of law. The provision of the constitution which prohibits the Legislature from depriving any 6itizen of his property excep.t by due course of the law of the land has a different meaning, when applied to controversies. between citizens, to that given it when property is taken or destroyed by the government for public use or the public welfare; and when the Legislature, in- the exercise -of its police--powers,-,-interferes -- with the use and enjoyment of private property,. we have only to see that the interference is justified by established rules applicable to the special case. It would be a strained construction of our Constitution to hold that the exercise of police power by the state cannot be valid without a judicial trial for ascertaining in each case the necessity of the authorized action. The method provided in this statute for the condemnation and destruction of diseased plants does not have the elements of a judicial trial, but the proceedings are appropriate and adapted to the nature of the case.and must be held valid. Everyone's right to the use and enjoyment of property is necessary-ly limited in organized society by considerations of public welfare and safety, and the Legislature, in the exercise of the police power of the state, can enforce this limitation by any reasonable method appropriate to its acc:omplis�ament, and the citizen must submit. To hold other- wise would dant' society the right to protect itself by lawful means. The contention that .the destruction of appellant's property, 'under the provisions of this statute, is a violation of the constitutional inhibition against the taking of private property for public use without compensation to the owner, is one that seems to us has much force, but it has been decided by our courts that this provision of the Constitution only applies to the, taking of property by the state under its powers of eminent domain, and is not a limitation upon the police power." The court, in the case of Crossman vs. the City of Galveston above referred to and quoted from, referred to the Stockwell case and said that the language there used and just above quoted was especially applicable to the contention of the owners in the "shack" case, to the effect that the ordinances attacked were in,violation of the Constitution of the United States. The above cases state ,the law in the matter in question, I think there is no -doubt. This opinion,,in the circumstances, would probably not be regarded as 'conplete,.maybe not satisfactory, without a reference to the question of the validity of the charter. Ordinarily, however, not even a reference to this question would be made or expected or thought of; for a charter, -the -thing --upon which the government -rests and which - holds the government establishment together,.and,without which the government must instantly go to pieces, is presumed to be and as of course is valid, and supposed,to be the solid and impregnable doundation and life of the government, until pronuunced void by a responsible court of competent jurisdiction after due hearing and ordinarily only after, the profoundest consideration; but reference to the question may be thought necessary at this time, at least desirable, for the reason that it is notorious that our charter has of late been repeatedly held.void and the present government put out of business'by the ever present tribunal whose'forum and place of business is the curbstone, the tribunal that tries and renders final judgment upon every question and every-.. controversy- legal, religious, moral, economic, political, etc., But while this curbstone adjudication of so vital and 8. �9 4V.. far-reaching a matter, so blithely and readily rendered, seems to have been accepted in some quarters as a deathblow to the charter and thereby licensing the lawless.and the thoughtless to become a law unto themselves as if we had no government, the charter is still the charter, it is still a valid document in every part as adapted by the people of this city, and it will remain valid for some time to come, in .my judgment. It .i s not yet wrecked: -and the government with.it..__.And .i_t---is my--opinion-that-it-will.-never--beexcept.--' by the curbstone judiciary mentioned. I have no misgivings whatever as to the charter's, validity in every respect, and that when,' if ever, it is passed upon by the responsible constitutional courts of the state, it will be so declared. C�,r courts do not seek opportunity or pretext to destroy charters and thereby destroy the machinery of government With its far-reaching wrecking consequences, but rather resolve every doubt, if there by any doubt, in favor of the validity of such documents and the stability of government, under them. I do not believe there is any reasonable- doubt of the validity of our charter,and all of us should, as we will, proceed accordingly,'without halting and without the slightest frustration. Re-spectfully yours-, City Attorney.