The Bozeman weekly chronicle. (Bozeman, Mont.) 1883-1889, 1884-01-09
Reply to Mayor Bogert.
Editor ofthe Chronicle:

drums IN your lsStIc Vi ldSt evening, ALI
as some of them are rather personal t
me, feel compelled to ask space for
brief reply, although differ from Hi
Honor, who seems to think it proper AM
dignified for the city officials to rush int
print to air their grievances.
His Honor says: "Why did you no
record the open statement of Anderson
that it Is public belief that one of tn,
Board is interested in that contract ?
Why did you not record the fact tina
Alderman Koch has admitted to me tha
he believes that statement to be founded
in fact? You might have recorded thu
latter, but you would not have recorded
a fact, as such is not the case. l remem
Der but one conversation with his Honor
on the subject. He told me then that {
certain Alderman was said to be interes
ted in the street contract. As had
never heard of it before land have never
heard of it since, until the last meeting
ofthe Councll) and as had no know
ledge whatever of the matter and have
none now, l could not of course, land
did not express any opinion on the sub
ject. But if His Honor has any know.
ledge of such an offence on the part o1
any Alderman, besides common gossip
he is guilty of official negligence in moi
preferring charges against him, and if he
has no suoh knowledge, he is guilty of a
very grave offence against common dec
ency, by causing the charge to be pub
llshed in newspaper.
His Honor asks: "Why do you not re-
cord the insulting treatment to which /
was subjected by Mr.. Koch ?" Simply
because it wasn't there to record. You
recorded the fact that moved that His
Honor's communication be not received,
and if l was guilty of any other "insult-
ing treatment" must beg His Honor to
enlighten me.
His Honor did deny having sent his
communication to the papers before it
was communicated to the City Council +;
but the facts in the case do not bear out
his denial. It was referred to in the pa
pers the same day on which it was
dated, and published on the following
day. The Council held no meeting until
ten days later, when it was first officially
communicated to us. To say that ut
became public document" as soon as it
was sent to the city clerk, is Of course a
shallow quibble. For that matter, as the
Council refused to receive it, it has never
yet become a public document, and l
trust it never will.
His Honor claims that the Council had
issued an "lllegal warrant" and Offered
a premium to failing contractors"
The warrant was regularly issued on
the report of the street committee and
city engineer, already published, every
member present voting for it. We all
acknowledged that the contractor had
done his work well under al the clrcum-
stances, that he had don, it cheaply and
had filled his contract as nearly as the
weather had permitted. Is there man
in this city. besid~ Tie Mayor, who thinks
that poor man should be kept out of a
thousand dollars all winter, money hon
nestly and we'll earned, because there
was fifteen dollars worth of work left un-
done, through no fault of his? That IS
the true issue between the Mavor and
the Council, and more than that, I re-
peat what l stated at the Council meet
ing, His Honor to the contrary, notwith-
that when the question of al
lowing this bill came up, the Mayor
presided, that every member present ex-
pressed himself in favor of allowing it,
before it was put to vote, that the
Mayor did not with one word oppose it !;
that he put the motion to allow it him
self, and never once did he hint at any
opposition to it on his part. Only after
it had passed, when it was no longer be-
fore the Council, but had been finally
Of did he mildly suggest to a
member, whether he thought the con-
tract had been filled. If His Honor
thought then, as he appears to do now,
that the Council was robbing the city,
why did he not perform his sworn duty
and protest, before it was too late?
Only one point remains,-His Honor
claims to be supported by phalaux,
of Aldermen Davis, of the
street committee, Aldeson and Meadow.
the street commissioner, and the city at
torney. Mr.. Davis is abroad, and has
been, throughout this controversy. Be-
fore he went away, he was always in
perfect harmony with Messrs. Story and
Cooper, of the same committee.
Neither Mr.. Meadow nor Mr.. Alder
son were present at the meeting, called
by His Honor himself, for the purpose of
of the street contract, and
neither of them have therefore placed
on record. AS neither the
acting street commissioner nor the city
have had any reason to state
their views. do not see why His Honor
drags them in; but have good reasons
for doubling the correctness of His
Honors statement regarding them.
If His Honor has any more conun-
drums to ask, trot them out, and l will
do the best l can to supply the answers.
As to His Honor's right to veto any
measure passed by the Council and to
refuse to sign any warrant, l doubt very
much, whether even he will claim that
any such right is conferred on him by
charter or ordinances. He does not, and
cannot, quote any clause in either, grant
ing, or inferring, or even limiting at any
such power on his part. He is the pre-
siding officer of the Council, and the
time and place for him to make any sug-
gestions or raising any objections, is
when measure is under debate, and be-
fore it is passed. After it has passed he
has no more right to refuse to sign an
ordinance or a warrant than the Speaker
of the House has to refuse to sign bill,
passed, there may be differ
ence of opinion, as to whether he should