Morning journal and courier., 1882-03-27

Sournal au0 Courier.
Monday Morning, March P. 1882.
PURE DEMOCRACY.

Monday Morning, March P. 1882.
 PURE DEMOCRACY.
 The very irregular and absurd perform ances of the Democratic majority in botl
 branches of the Court of Common Counci
 last Friday evening deserve more than ass ing notice. Especially did they sin wilfully } and against great light in the Board of Coun
 cilmen. We call the attention of our read CTS to the main points of the proceedings 1T
 that body.
 After the resolutions concerning the action
 of the Board of Public Works in the matter
 of awarding the contract for street cleaning
 had been read motion made that they
 be adopted in concurrence with the action of
 the Board of Aldermen. Councilman Twiss
 immediately arose to a point of order. He
 asked the Clerk whose signature was respons
 ible for the resolutions and what member of
 either Board had endorsed them. The Clerk
 replied that no one had signed the resolu- 1 tions and that no member of either Board had endorsed them. It was afterwards dis
 covered that the resolutions were endorsed by Alderman Law, but not until the Presi-
 dent had decided that Mir. Twiss' point of
 order not we'll taken, and that inasmuch
 as the Board of Aldermen had passed the
 resolutions they could be considered by the | Council. In making this decision the Presi- dent ignored the eleventh section of the 1 joint rules of the Court of Common Council which reads as follows "All reports, reso lutions, orders and other papers submitted l to the Court of Common Council shall be 1 written in fair hand, on not less than one l half sheet of paper; and every member of fering any petition or order shall endorse ! thereon bis name in some proper and con- spicuous place.' Councilman Barnes ap- pealed from the decision of the President, calling for the yeas and nays. The decision of the Chair was sustained by a strict party vote. Thus was obstruction number one re- moved.
 Councilman Twiss, undeterred by the re- ception his first effort had met with arose to make another point of order, and when he was allowed hearing claimed that the resolutions could not be legally passed upon by the Council, except by unanimous con sent or by reference to an appropriate com mittee; and quoted, as authority, from the Twenty fourth section of the city charter, the last part of which reads as follows: "No vote shall be taken upon any bylaw, ordi- nance, resolution, or other measure, in either body, until the same shall have been referred to and reported upon by an appro priate committee, or one of the standing boards of commissioners, unless by unani- nous consent But the President was equal to the emergency, and calmly ignoring the city charter, decided that the point of order was not we'll taken. Councilman Barnes appealed from the decision, but the majority came promptly to the support of the President in his attack on the charter, and obstacle number two faded away.
 In the third round Councilman Twiss came up smiling, and several Democrats came up howling-one of them for the previous ques- tion. After the uproar had subsided, Mir Twiss asked the Clerk if there was any en- dorsement on the resolutions to the effect that unanimous consent had been obtained, in the Board of Aldermen for their passage in that board. The Clerk replied that there was no such endorsement. NIr. Twiss then made the point that the Board of Council men could nGt legally pass these resolutions without such an endorsement on them, and quoted in support of his position the Seven teenth section of the joint rules of the Court of Common Council which reads as follows "Upon the passage of any ordinance, order, or resolution, or the granting of any petition by either board where by the charter of said city, the unanimous consent of either or both boards is necessary an entry of the fact that unanimous consent was obtained, as provided in the Ninth section of said charter, shall be made upon such ordirace order, resolution, petition" This wonld have staggered some presiding officers, but the President did not allow it to interfere with his equanimity. He decided that inas much as the Board of Aldermen had passed the resolutions he would presume that they acted properly, unless he had record evidence to the contrary, and cheerfully overruled the point of order made by Mir. Twiss. Council | man Barnes appealed, but the majority re sponded with eagerness to the call of the | President and swept obstacle number three | from the path marked out.
 Councilman Twiss then raised what was | perhaps stronger point of order than any 1 which had been made. He asked the Clerk | for the date of the passage of the resolutions | in the Board of Aldermen as shown by the | endorsement on them. The Clerk replied | that the endorsement showed that they | passed the Board of Aldermen on the 2+th of | March, which was that very day. MT. Twiss | then claimed that no resolution could be 1 passed through both boards on the same day | except by unanimous consent, and supported 1 this claim by reading from the Twenty fourth section of the city charter as follows: No | ordinance, bylaw or other measure which has been adopted by either body shall be put upon its passage and finally voted on by the other body on the same day upon which it was adopted by the former one, except by unanimous consent" Here the resources of the Chair seemed to give out, for this point of order was sustained. But though the President had come to a stopping place his supporters had not. An appeal was taken from the decision,i it promptly oW4rruled, and obstacle number four thus disposed of
 But this did not conclude the performance, for Councilman who had some time before moved the previous question now called for 6 vote on his motion. Whereupon Council man Twiss raised the point of order that the motion for the previous question could not be entertained because it was made while he had the floor and arguing on point of order. The President, however, overrulsd point of order number five, the previous question was called and the resolutions passed.
 To sum up, five plain and we'll sustained points of order made by MT. Twiss were overruled, and the resolutions were passed contrary to the joint rules of the Court of Common Council and the Charter of the City of New Haven. It would be hard to find a parallel to this exhibition in the annals of our city government or in those of any other. We suggest that full and impartial record of the meeting of both the Councilmen and Aldermen be published in the City Year Book.
 EDITORIAL NOTES.