The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-08-31
PROCEEDINGS or THE CITY COUNCIL.
ADJOURNED SESSION.


TUESDAY, August 80, 1859.
FIRST BRANCH.-Present-CALE HYNEs, Presi-
dent, pro tenn. and all the members, except Messrs.
Ford, Houston and Glanville.
Mr.. Balm presented the petition of number of
citizens, asking that gas lamp be placed on the
corner of Saratoga and Stricken streets. Re
ferred to the Comptroller.
Mr.. MULES presented the petition of George W.
Gettler asking that a frame shop may be allowed
to remain. Referred to the Committee on Fire
Companies.
Mr.. MULES presented the petition of Kimberly &
Brothers, asking permission to erect steam engine
on their premises on McKim street Referred to
the Committee on Fire Companies.
MIR. MULES presented a memorial from A. For
rester, asking that the city may purchase IS copies
of the revised ordinance now in his dhsscsson
Referred to the Committee claims.
Mr.. MULES presented memorial from S t. Knight
and Others complaining Of the bad manner in
which the rails of the City Passenger Railway are
laid on Green, Franklin, and other streets. Re-
ferred to the Committee on Highways.
Mr. Balm offered a resolution relative to having
steppng-stones placed Pratt street. at Carey Re
ferred to the City Commissioner.
Mr.. TALBOT presented tine report of the Commit
tee on Water authorizing the removal of pump on
Cowpen alley. Adopted.
Mr.. TALBOT presented the report of the Commit
tee on Water, authorizing d. C. Howell to remove
pump in front of No. 1SS West Lombard street
Adopted.
communication received from the City
Commissioner relative to charging and repairing
tne sewers on pennsylvania avenue. Referred to
the Committee on Highways
Mr.. BEALE called up the ordinance authorizing
the opening of Park street, from Richmond to Bid
die street.
Mr.. WooD moved the reference of the bill to the
next session of the Council
The motion prevailed by a vote of yeas H. nays T.
Mr.. CUNNINGHAM presented minority report
from the Joint Special Committee on the City Pas
senger Railway.
The following is the report, which is signed by
MeSSrS. Cunningham and RanlODb. of he
Branch
The undersigned, minority of a committee who
were appointed in June last, at the suggestion of
his Honor the Mayor, in a communication made to
the Councils in reference to the ordinance provd-
ing for city passenger railways, respectfully ask
permission to explain to the City Council their
reasons for withholding their signatures from the
report as presented by the majority.
In the first place, the conclusions that the ma
Jorlty have arrived at and the ordinance which
they present. the result of the labors of the Com
mittee are not, in the Judgment of the undersigned,
warranted by the facts elected by the eXamina-
Uon held by the Committee. The course pursued
by the Committee did not meet the approval of the
undersigned in regard to the duties of the Commit
tee and the course necessary to be pursued in refer
| ence to the subject which had been referred to
them The undersigned believed, as they still do,
that the attention of the Committee should have
been confined to an examination of whether the pro-
visions of the ordinance had been violated, and if
| so, in what manner
The idea of investigating the validity of the or
dinance, or the power of the Council to pass such
an one, had not been suggested to the undersigned
either by his Honor the Mayor in his message, or
by any member of the Council, until the meeting of
the Committee and when the subject was spoken of
| the undersigned was surprised, and expressed
themselves, and refused to vote for the employment
OF legal opinions in regard to the matter which we
conceived to be entirely out of the province of this
| Committee. Thinking that the Committee were
appointed to investigate the matter the five pro
positions, as submitted by his Honor the Mayor in
| his message of the 18th of June, 1859, and his
| Honor has never expressed doubt of the legality
of the ordinance, to the knowledge of the under
signed, we thought that it useless to expend
| the time OF the Committee, or the money OF the
city, IN such useless side propositions that.
The merits of several bills were freely discussed,
and yet the legality validity of such provisions
as have been enacted in the Travcrs' bill were not
pointed out illegal during the discussion, nor,
far as the undersigned have any knowledge, since
| the passage of the ordinance
The opinions of several lawyers of the city have
been procured, to the undersigned they mostly
ncomprehensible The opinions are mostly based
on certain contingencies that may or may not eX-
lSt, but certainly are not embraced in the ordi-
nance approved March 2S, 1859: besides one or
more of the gentlemen who have given
their written opinions, had occasion to ex-
anime the ordinance about the first day of April
last, and certified at that time that the bond pro-
vlded for in the ordinance good and sufficient
for the purposes intended, and would be binding on
the parties. If the ordinance is Illegal would that
|
| them who is retained for the city, to have made
known the fact to the authorities of the CITY, Yet,
although the entire ordinance has been pronounced
as void and illegal, the majority report in favor
of re-enacting number of the identical sections,
word for word, proposing to confer the same au-
thorlty on other parties without making any proyi-
sions to guard against the immediate assign
ment of all their interests at a period shorter
if they pleased than that used by the Travers'
company. Since the Committee was appointed
one of the highest Courts of the State has given
decision based upon the ordinance referred to-
would that honorable Judge have pronounced upon
a law known to be defective or illegal and void
without giving an in:imation or expressing doubt
of its legality.
The undersigned regret that the parties who
are empowered to build the road under the ordi
nance have declined to give all the information that
the Committee wished in relation to the subject as
referred to the Committee; it is true that the ma
jority of the Committee determined upon taking a
very wide scope in their examinations, yet that
should not have deferred them from placing them
selves in proper position before the Committee anC
the Council, when opportunity offered then
officially to do So
The undersigned think that there is no excuse fol
the City Commissioner for not having given the
work of building the road to his supervisors pro
vided for in the ordinance. 1t is useless for him tC
endeavor to hide behind the technicality of lega
notice not having been served ON him as The
guardian of the property OF the city, especially IL
that particular and it being his duty to protect thu
highways of the city, how can he account for MOI
Knowing that the streets torn up from east tt
west ON Baltimore street, the principal thorough
fare OF the city? We think he will hardly persis
in such course, it must be apparent to all tha
he is derelict in his duty long he continues tt
refuse.
The Committee on Highways could not be ex
pected to constantly devote their attention during
the recess of the Council, without any provision
having been made for their remuneration. Severa
members of the Committee have represented tina
kthey have examined the work up to the lst August
and approving of it,