Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-04-14
To the cisiuens Of NASHVILLE.

II lA0IIIlI1lC uaLalllc III III DUNCIs
The day before it first anne before the
| common Council, | learned IRON what l
deemed reliable authority, that the same
parties or company had submitted a propo-
sition to construct a fire alarm in Memphis
for $4,000, a letter was Immediately mall
| ed &c procure that proposition.
L stated the substance of what / had
| leaned TO the Board, and moved a refer
| ence OF the bill to a special committee, for
the purpose of getting all the light possible
On tie subject
NJ motion, and several amendments
| subsequently offered, we're rejected snd the
| bill passed three readings. In due thine an
answer came from Memphis, stating that
| the proposition could not be found, and
| giving the substance of it from memory.
| Now, although it did not embody all that
the same company proposed to furnish
Nasitville for S22500. It TO my mind en-
braced all the essential features, and | fssi
quite sure that it specifies all that Nashville
needs at present, if it is expedient
at all 10 have an alarm telegraph.
As is well known, the Mayor vetoed the
bill, and the Board of Aldermen sustained
the veto last Tuesday night, at least that
Vas my understanding Of their action until
Wednesday evening, when / was told hat
they intended to resurrect il again Thu s.
dav night with a view Of its passage. l inn
mediately started a petition among the tax
PAYERS, requesting the Common Council to
sustain the action of the Mayor, for the
purpose of using it with other papers in
nv argument to defeat the bill. l can
yassed the city as thoroughly as / could in
the short time allowed, ana not over five or
six of those TO whom l displayed it refused
10 sign it.
vent to the meeting on Thursday night,
and as the bill did not COME dp, l supposed
it not necessary to present it at the time
petitions were in order, as l did not know
whether it had come before the Board
of Aldermen or not. The Common Coun-
eli adioufHsd ;iftil the hext tFridgy} even
ing TO finish their business. When tie
roll was called Friday evening, the follow
ing members were present: Edwards, CuE
lom, Towles, Martin. Reddiek, Gaut, Luck,
Littere-. Slowey, Miller, Haley, Moore,
Burlein, Law, Melrose, Lindsey. After
the transaction of considerable business, 1t
was moved and carried to suspend the regu-
lar Srier uf business and taSe up the fire
alarm bill; at the proper lime | tnoved to
lay it on the table. which was seconded;
and I hope right here, that all citizens a.
terested in knowing which members were
in favor OF sustaining the veto, and those
who wers not, Will Scan this Vote closely,
ana light on the slbiees vim sHiue ont.
Vote to lay on the table: Yeas, keddick,
Luck, Slowey, Haley, Melrose-; nays.
Cullom, Towles, Martin, Gaut, Litterer,
Miller, Lindsey, Moore. Bierlein, Law-10.
Motioato lag on table lost he bill then CAME
up onthe original notion, 10 pass II over the
Mayors veto. l then arose to argue against
its passage, amidst considerable Interrupt
ton and calls for the question. After a few
preliminary remarks, / displayed a petition
| from Taxpayers representing over two mil
lions OF taxable property In This city,
| which the chair, By request Of members,
| ruled ont of order. ] appealed from the
decision, stating that it was signed by
, nearly all our large taxpayers, and best
citizens, whose will and petition should al
| ways be in order among their representa-
tives, and that if / had three or -four DAYS
time, L could carpet the Council chamber
with 4 petitiJn % Sustain The Mayors yeto'
A vote was taken, and the chairs decision
| that your voice should not be heard MAS
Sustained,
then attempted 10 read some istts+s 10
show that the same company had proposed
to put up an alarm in Memphis, embracing
what | believe to be all the essential fea-
lures Of their proposition 10 Nashville, for
| $1,000. but was again ruled down, and be-
ing eonviuced that noses had beeu counted,
ana the bits so firmly fixed betwees their
teeth that nothing would shake them loose,
| opposition was Withdrawn. Vote in its
passage
Yeas-Cullom, Towles, Martin, Red
dick. Cant. Literer, Miller, Moore, Berlein
and Law-l0.
Nays-Luck, Slowey, Haley, Melrose and
Lindsey.
Alter adiBumItent, ! left the Council
Chamber determined to publish my argu-
ments and papers, including the Memphis
and Nashville propositions side by side,
for the purpose Of showing hat a few short
strokes of a pen, on the Nashville PROPOSE
| ton. would give CITY a fire alarm from
the same company, with what | deemed ali
the essential features Of it. for $4,000 less
money. if the Mayors veto had been sus-
tanned. and the company would make the
same proposition 10 Nashville they did to
Memphis.
On the following Saturday morning
tUE AEAlllcIilAl ECilE1CAEAA- NAC RChAHGn.s
called at my store, and in presence of
Councilman Martin and Haley, and my
brother. asked for the Memphis PROPOSE
ton he left with me the day before, with
! nv proinise that / would not make an i'm
proper use of il. handed it to him. He
then asked me repeatedly if | had copied
IL. refused to answer the question. He
hen warned and threatened me with a
II e - a. an aF his nOmnQnr or
published a PROPOSITION of theirs TO anOth-
er city in nv promised communication, on
tie ground that I would itiisrepresent it
and them. also stating that if il was to be
published he preferred doing it with his
own explanations. / then proposed that
lie should publish it. He refused, saying
that he did not want to Publish anything.
After other words l deem not Necessary to
mentiun lie left me-
proposition ont of this article, hoping that
he will publish. It verbatim with his own
explanations. and any verbal additions that
NAV have been made, Including b the
underwriters agreed to do, II Memphis
wOuhl adopt it.
nov desire the gentleman TO distinctly
understand that | have not j n h Council,
OF out OF IL. STU GA1LAhh6 E-
against the merits Of the automatic fire
alarm. or with a view Of impugning or re-
fectins upon the actions or motives OF him
self, his company, or any one in favor OF
tine bill. The position, as understand IL,
is simply this: that he is doing all he can
to advance the interest of those he repre-
sen!s. and 1 know that L am like
wise doing the same to guard
the interests Of my constituents, and
if any one thinks that l am not representing
their wishes, / hereby agree to resign my
position as councilman, at the solicitation
often taxpayers ofmy ward, providing The
City Council will agree to leave the cleo
ton of my successor TO the voters of the
Fifth ward.
| could write columns Of arguments
against the bill, but the editors cry out
bTeyity, so will conclude by saying that
am not a penny wise and pound foolish
economist; opposed to city improvement.
NV past history as a citizen, and vote on
needed improvements in the City Council,
fully reftlte such a charge. | am for all use
ful improvements at the proper time and
price. although, not perhaps in favor OF al
lowing the corporation steam to rush
through the throttle valve quite so lively as
would our worthy fellow citizen b. ii. u
JOHN LUCK,
Councilman, Fifth ward.