Morning journal and courier., 1882-03-25
Board of Aldermen.

special meeting of the Board of Alder men was held last evening, His Honor Mayor Robertson presiding
 Petitions were read and referred as fol- lows: Of S. B. Oviatt for permission to erect frame addition of I. Merwin to erect a frame addition; for concrete walk on Argyle street; for concrete walk on Dixwell avenue for sidewalk on the east side of Shelton avenue; for the curbing of Munson Park; of William Cummings, Dan iel H. Brown and Timothy Crowley to be ap- pointed bath house keepers for grade and curb on the north side of Martin street, be- tween Beers street and Sherman avenue; of T. G. w. Jefferson for 6 curb on Downing street, between Pine and Lombard streets : for sidewalk on the south side of Wolcott street, between Blatchley avenue and Poplar | street; of Michael Scally ct al, for the erection of public bath house in the vicin- ity of Lewis bridge
 Order for new street between Chapel and Court streets, and running from State street to Orange street, was laid on the table until the next meeting
 Resolution de thanks to the donors of the portrait Of ex-Mayor Lewis was passed.
 Petition for four lamps on Martin street, between Sherman avenue and the almshouse, was referred.
 Order for croSsWalk across Market street was referred to the Committee on Streets, in accordance with former action.
 The resolution giving the Police Commis sloners power to use unexpended balances for the purpose of securing place for po- Ice precinct was called up by Alderman O'Keefe, who advocated the passage of the resolution.
 Aldermen Sheldon and Studley thought that the matter should lie upon the table un- til the nexC regular meeting. Alderman Mix moved to table, and the motion was carried.
 Alderman Law brought up the question of awarding contracts by the Board of Public Works and the recent award by that body for street cleaning. He presented the fol l lowing preamble and resolutions: Whereas We deem the manner in which the con- tra t for cleaning the streets of New Haven gently awarded as negotiable, unjust and disad- vantageous to the best interests of citizeLs arge in that it shut off from competitive bidding ether responsible parties and Whereas, We deem the action of the Board of Pub lie Works in awarding contract of such magnitude without due onsideration and before any bids had been advertised for specifications which they might be bound set forth, improper and to the detrment of the financial interests of the city, and Whereas This Honorable Court is in doubt upon
 the various legal points arising under and by of said action of said Board of Public Works there fore
 1 Resolved, That we the Court of Common Council disappIove the action of certain members constitut l ing majority of the Board of Public Works in awarding raid street cleaning contract, in manner and form aforesaid and protest against the | unwse, unprecedented and arbitrary. Ordered, That committee consisting of two Alder men and three Councimen be appointed to confer with the Corporation Counsel and obtain his opinion concerning the following:
 FirstWas the contract for cleaning the streets of Now Haven, recently entered into by the Board of Public Works with Messrs Bakeslee x Son, a valid contract and binding on the city? Second-Has the Court of Common Council power to order and prescribe the manner and terms upon which the Board If Public Works shall clean the 1 streets of said city?
 1 Third-Has the Board of Public Works power to o1o without order of the Court of Common Council | authorizing them so to do? Fourth-Can the Board of Public Works make contract the time for completing which extends be- yond the fiscal year for which appropriations have 1 been made, which shall be binding on the city? Alderman Law addressed the Board in re- gard to the resolutions. He said that bids 1 were advertised for for street cleaning by sections and all the bids were rejected. Then Messrs. Blakeslee < Son put in 8 bid to do all the work for 8 certain sum and they were awarded the contract during the absence of two members of the Board. He claimed that l the contract sum exceeded the appropriation and that the Board of Public Works had therefore exceeded their powers. They had also granted a contract for four months be- yond the fiscal year and over which they had no control. He read from the charter as to the powers of the Board of Public Works and claimed that the Court of Common Coun- cil had supreme control, although the Board of Public Works had under the charter gen. eral superintendence. He claimed that there was sufficient reason for the calling of this meeting for the purpose of remonstrating against the action of that Board. The action was not fair. It was not in accordance with the usual plan of advertising for bids. Alderman Sheldon replied He said while he was not prepared to endorse the manner in which the contract in question was given out, yet he thought it would be well to get the opinion of the Corporation Counsel be- fore passing these sweeping resolutions.
 Aldermen Studley and Benton took similar ground.
 After discussion pro and con Alderman Shoninger moved that the resolutions be laid upon the table until the opinion of the Cor poration Counsel, now before him, could be obtained. He afterward withdrew the mo- ton.
 Then Alderman Studley renewed the mo- tion, which was seconded by Alderman Ben ton.
 Alderman Studley was proceeding to ex- plain when he was called to order by Alder man O'Keefe, who said that the Alderman from the Tenth was not speaking on the motion that he had made.
 His Honor ruled that the Alderman from the Tenth could explain his motion.
 Alderman O'Keefe appealed from the de- cision of His Honor.
 
 on their feet at once, and calls of ''order, , ''previous question:" &c., &c., were loudly made.
 Alderman studley insisted on being heard He said there was nothing made by applying the gag law. He said he would be heard, and the Aldermen would have to hear him whether they wanted to or not.
 Alderman Law rose to question of privi- lege and asked His Honor to make Alderman Studley confine himself to the question.
 Alderman Studley replied and said he pro- posed to have his rights in this Board. Hay ing secured his rights he would now take his seat.
 The vote to lay the resolutions on the table was then taken by yeas and nays and was lost by vote of 5 to 14.
 Alderman Sheldon offered an amendment of inquiry as to the charges stated in the res olution, which motion was lost.
 Alderman Studley moved that the whole matter be referred to the Corporation Coun- sel lost.
 Alderman Farnsworth moved that the whole matter be referred to the committee on retrenchment, reform and abuses lost
 Alderman Law called for the previous ques- ton.
 Alderman Grifing moved to adjourn so- that they could take the last car. (Laugh ter.)
 Alderman Studley raised the point that the resolution could not be passed under the charter without first being referred to an ap- propriate committee unless by unanimous consent.
 Again three or four Aldermen were on their feet at once, all calling on the president at the same time.
 Is this.a mob or is it Board of Aldermen? said one member.
 To the general observer it appeared very much like mob.
 The chair ruled that resolution could not be passed without first being referred to an appropriate committee. An appeal from the Mayors ruling was made and on a vote being taken the chair was not sustained.
 The main question was called for and AL derman Studley moved that the question be taken by yeas and nays. Amid great 'thub- bub' the vote was commenced. When Al derman Studley's name was reached he moved that he be excused from voting and called for the yeas and nays on the motion.
 The motion was lost and the vote on the resolutions was then passed by vote of 12 to ?.
 Alderman Benton moved to adjourn. Lost.
 Alderman Law moved that the rules be suspended and that the resolutions be at once transmitted to the Board of Councilmen.
 Alderman Sheldon said there was no such rule to suspend. It was simple provision of the charter that any ordinance, bylaw or resolution could not be acted upon the same evening by both bodies without unanimous consent, and this had not and could not be obtained Notwithstanding this statement the motion prevailed and the resolutions