City of Seattle v. Barto

Citations

• 31 Wash. 141
• 71 P. 735
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 595

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ORDINANCES-SINGLENESS OF OBJECT.</p> <p>An ordinance regulating and licensing the carrying on of business by auctioneers, second-band dealers, bill posters, hotel runners, pawn brokers and persons engaged in tbe temporary sale of goods cannot be regarded as enumerating more than one object of legislation, as it has as its general purpose tbe protection of tlie public against certain occupations deemed inimical to the public good if allowed to be conducted without restrictions.</p> <p>SAME-SUFFICIENCY OF TITLE.</p> <p>Where the title of an ordinance states that it is “an ordinance to license and regulate certain trades and occupations in the city,” it sufficiently expresses the object of the ordinance without •enumerating in the title the several occupations mentioned in the body of the act.,</p> <p>SAME —■ PAWNBROKERS LICENSE FEES EXCESSIVENESS.</p> <p>A license fee of $100 per annum upon the business of pawnbroking cannot, as a matter of law be said to be arbitrary and excessive, and therefore a tax on business, but, such business being a proper subject of police regulation, it is within the province •of the municipality to make the business bear the cost of surveillance, the fairness of which the courts will not inquire into •on any mere difference of opinion between the municipal authorities and those engaged in the regulated business, in the absence ■of any proof on the question of the excessiveness of the charge.</p>