Morning journal and courier., 1884-12-30
monR DERRY RAILRoAD TALK

 Gallagher in the chair. The meeting was called by the Mayor for the purpose of far ther considering the Derby railroad matter. |
 The report of the commissioners of the municipal bond sinking fund showing the amount of said fund to be $51, ,219.42 was read and ordered on file to be printed in the city year book.
 Annual report of the Committee on Streets for 1884 was referred to the committee on city year book to be raised.
 President Gallagher said that he supposed the purpose of the meeting was to consider the Derby railroad matter. He said the original paper was on the table.
 Continuing, the president said that since the last meeting he had consulted the best legal talent in the city in regard to the cor rect parliamentary rules in regard to the re- port of the Finance committee and it's status and they agreed that the paper was virtually killed by the Board of Councilmen at their previous meetings and that at present it had no legal status before said Board. President Gallagher's opinion in detail was as follows:
 The legislative branch of our city govern ment as in our national and State govern ments consists of two bodies of legislators which act separately and independently of each other. The city charter expressly pro- vides that every vote, resolution, order, by law or other ordinance, which passes either Board, shall be transmitted to the other and, if passed there also, shall then be sent to the Mayor for his approval, page IT, sec. 24). It often happens that measure is passed by one Board, sent to the other, there altered or amended, passed in it's modified form and, finally, returned to the first Board. The first Board may then agree or disagree to the amendments. If it agrees, the measure is ready for the Mayors signature. If there is disagreeing vote on any of the alterations or amendments, the procedure is as indicated by section of the joint rules concerning the appointment of committees of confer ence.
 But where one Board passes measure and the other Board, even after amending it, by vote reject the report, vote down the order, or in any other manner 'kill the bill, there is no basis for any further action except the reconsideration of the vote taken. If, after reconsideration, it is again voted down the measure is lost and that is the end of the matter. This rule is very old and we'll es- tablished one. In Blackstone's commenta- ries, volume 1, page 163, I find that if the House of Lords reject a bill passed by the House of Com mons 'tno more notice is taken'' of it. Let me read from section 2,292 of Cushings Claw and Practice of Legislative Assem- plies, which by our rules is made our guide: 'FIt is not the usage for one of the houses of legislative body to inform the other by what numbers bill has passed; nor, where a bill from the other house has been rejected does the house in which the proceeding takes place 1 give the other any notice of the rejection or return the bill to that house: but the matter passes sub silentio to prevent unbe- I coming altercations." This is the ordinary rule of parliamentary practice, subject, of course, to such particular regulation as each provided that ''when 8 bill or resolution which shall have passed in one house, is re- jected in the other, notice thereof shall be given to the house in which the same shall have been passed" (Cushing's Manual, 1 page S87) We have adopted the same doc Urine and section of our joint rules pro- vidss that 'Ewhen either Board shall not colour with the other in any ordinance, order or resolution sent from such other, notice of such non-concurrence shall forthwith be given"
 Such notice was given to the Board of AL dermen when our clerk handed the Mayor the report of the Board of Finance on the Derby railroad matter with an indorsement to the effect that we had reject ed the report and recommendations. The Board of Aldermen, instead of simply hear ing the indorsement read and recognizing that the reading of it was notice to them served in compliance with joint rule No. 5, assumed that the report was before them for their action. It would have avoided confu- sion if I had directed the clerk to make copy of the indorsement and serve that in stead of the original paper, That is the manner, as I have since found out, in which 1 such notices are usually sent. Certain it is that the proposed settlement with the Derby l railroad after we had voted it down, recon | siderod it and voted it down again was as 'dead" in the parliamentary sense as it's | worst enemies could wish and cannot now | be revived by this Board.
 By request of Councilman Thomas R. Trowbridge, ir., the clerk read the opinion i of Corporation Counsel Driscoll to President | Gallagher in regard to the legal right of the l Board of Councilmen to further consider the | matter of the Derby railroad. Mir. Driscoll | gave it as his opinion that the Council had a | right to further consider their action. l
 Councilman Wolfe moved that the Board | recede from it's former action and concur | with the Board of Aldermen in their action l
 President Gallagher said that he should | have to rule that the motion was out of or der.
 Councilman Kent moved to adjourn. Lost.
 Councilman Wolfe8took an appeal from the presidents ruling.
 Councilman Graves moved that the appeal | be tabled; lost.
 Councilman Wolfe explained his objections to the ruling of the president.
 Councilman Sargent said that this bill had | not passed, but had been rejected twice and it could not be considered again. It could l not come before this Board only as new busi- md hv nd that could never be obtained so long as he was in the Board.
 Councilman Graves said he was surprised at the argument of the Councilma an from the Fourth (Wolfe) who was soon to occupy the chair of president of this Board He was sorry to see such opinion as expressed go upon the record from such source.
 Councilman Wolfe said if he was in the chair next year he should be perfectly will ing to have any rules he might make ap- pealed from
 Councilman T. R. Trowbridge jr., said he considered the ruling of the president en- tirely proper and he therefore moved to ad- journ, and the motion was carried by @ vote of 15 to 10.
 When the announcement was made by the president that the Board was adjourned there was loud cheering by the spectators who oc- cupied the rear of the chamber. Judging from the vote on the motion to adjourn it is a question whether if vote had been reached the report would have been con cured in by the Councilmeu,
 After the adjournment there was great deal of loud talking among the members in the ante-room and it was evident that the best of feeling did not prevail. Bets were offered on parliamentary law and some of the members were shaking fve-dollar bank notes in the faces of others and offering to bet that Ca motion to adjourn" was not al- ways in order. They finally ffcooled downn and singly and in pairs left the hall and went out into the street. For small "circus' it was a good one.
 LINCOLN RINK.
 EYahafan 2aEAnl EDnnHIa And Tlna Mr.