St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-04-10
OFFICIAL.
Proceedings Of the Common Council
Regular Meeting.

nor, GeIScn, Sullen, OduUOII, 0oAlloVhi
Van Slyke. Kahn, Starlley, Bryant. Minea,
Long, Mr.. President-14.
COMMUNICATIONS.
From His Honor the MayOr-Neto
To the Honorable the President and Com
mon Council of the City of st. Paul:
! herewith return without my approval,
Ordinance No. -. entitled An Ordinance
Granting J. E. Norton Permission TO Re-
move a Frame Dwelling House from Ger
tain Property and Along Certain Streets
onto to Other Property, for the reason that
with the exception of section 3, it is liter
ally the same ordinance that l declined TO
approve. and returned TO your honorable
body under date of the 22d inst, with a
communication giving my reasons therefor,
to-wit: That the preliminary publication
of notice required by Section of Article
20. entitled Fire Limits, had not been COM
piled WITH as appears by atfidavits placed
on file in this office, and herewith transmit
ted to the Council. This section is as fol-
lows:
Sec. 6. The Common Council is
hereby prohibited from granting any
permits or licenses for the con-
StrucIiOn of wooden buildings
of any kind within the foregoing and above
prescribed fire limits, which would require
an amendment or modification OF the pro-
visions of this ordinance, without requiring
such applicant for said permit or license TO
give AT least two weeks notice of his in
tended application to the Common Council
for such permit or license by at least one
publication in the official paper of the city"
For what purpose was this notice required?
Evidently to enable property holders and
residents in the vicinity Of the proposed
erection to make objection before the COun-
Gil, il any there should be, as to its increaS-
ing their fire risks, as to buildings con-
Structed or to be erected; TO object on SAINT
airy grounds il Such exist, or for any other
valid reason.
To obviate the necessity of complying with
this provision, as to this same application
the section is sought to be repealed, and so
is section 76 of the Building ordinance.
which is as follows: ANY person desir-
ing to remove a building shall first obtain
the written assent TO such removal from
persons owning a majority of front feet OF
lots in the same block on the same street in
which it is proposed to locate such removed
building and. also. majority of persons
owning front feet opposite the proposed
Ocation and within $50 feet Of the same;"
and so also, is section l of the ordinance eS-
tablishing Fire Limits" in like manner
sought to be repealed. Why is this? Three
ordinances which have been the result of
years of discussion, deliberation and OBJ
servaton have been thrown aside without
publicity or discussion TO make way for
This one application, but stand unre-
repealed as to all other APP
picants for like permission. |
know of no reason why the law should
not apply to all alike. The city has wisely
established fire limits and incurred great
expense in establishing a fire department.
and the cost of its maintenance will be
very great in the future. The necessity Of
maintaining these ordinances in full force
is each day increasing instead of diminish
ing. and. therefore, l cannot approve OF
this short cut TO get around the inconven-
fence of complying with them. Strong OBJ
jectiOns were made before me to the APP
proyal of the ordinance returned to you,
and affidavits were filed. as well, by per-
sons claiming that they would be injured by
the removal of the building to said lot
These objections ought to be allowed a
hearing before your honorable body, or a
committee thereof, or the Building Inspec-
tor, and report made thereon. A diSre
gard of the provisions of the law by the
Common Council tends to lessen the con-
fidence of the people in its wisdom
and impartiality, and to bring all laws passed
by it into contempt. If the lawmakers
will not be bound by its own ordinances,
who will willingly consent to be?
repeat this extraordinary clause in the
Ordinance herewith returned as follows:
Section 3.-That Section No.
of Ordinance No. 433, passed
August. 1884; Section No. 76 of
as amended by Ordinance No. 34S, passed
Sep. IS, 1883, and Section Of Ordinance
No. 512. passed May 10, 1885. so far as said
sections contravened be provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed"
! am more than aStOniShed at this, and
must consider that 1t is the result of hasty
and inconsiderate action, possibly pre-
ceded by imposition, because accompany
ing the ordinance from which il
is quoted you have transmitted
another ordinance, No. =, of like
import, passed at the same session, ell.
titled: IAN Ordinance Authorizing Her.
man c. Knish to Move Frame Building,
Etc, (which contains no repeating clause
like Section 3, above quoted. l return
this to your honorable body likewise with
out my approval, for the reason that no no.
tce of an application therefor was pub.
lished as required by Section 6 of Article
&c of the ordinance entitled Fire Limits, "
as l have been officially informed.
To obtain my approval of all such ordi-
nances the prerequisites to their considera-
ton by the Common Council must have
been complied with.
EDMUND RICE, Mayor.
March 81, 1886.
Communication accepted and acted upor
as follows:
Ordinance referred to granting I. E. Nor.
ton permission to remove a frame dwellin!
house, etc., read and reconsidered by tn,
following vote:
VaaC-AId Cuminrs DoIvlan O,Cop
nor, Petsch. Cullen, Sanborn, johnson
Van Slyke, Kahn, Starkey, Bryant, Minea
Long, Mr.. President-14.
The said ordinance being put on its pass
age the veto of the Mayor to the contrar.
Notwithstanding, it was passed and adopte'
by the following vote:
Yeas-Ald. Cummings, Dowlan, O'Con
nor, Petsch, Cullen, Sanborn, Johnson
Van Slyke, Kahn, Starkey, Bryant, Minea
Long. Mr.. Presidents.
Ordinance referred to authorizing Her
man c. Kirsch to move frame buldin,
read and reconsidered by the following
vote:
Yeas-Ald. Cummings, Dowlan, O'Con
nor, Petsch, Cullen, Sanborn, johnson
Van Slyke, Kahn, Starkey, Bryant, Minea
Long, Mr.. President-14.
The said ordinance being put on its pass
age. the veto of the Mayor TO the contrar
Notwithstanding, it was passed and adopte
by the following vote:
Yeas-Ald. Cummings. Dowlan, O'Cor
nor, Petsch, Cullen. Sanborn, johnson
Van Slyke, Kahn, StarRey, Bryant, Minea
Long, Mr.. President--14.
Also,
Workhouse Director Appointed
To the Honorable the President and Con
mon Council of the CITY of st. Paul: