The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-12-18
NOT AN ELECTRIC LIGHT
Thrown Upon The Times Doubts Con-
corning the NIacIiuv ~ Co. Franchise.

Thrown Upon The Times Doubts Con.
corning the MachnY ~ Co. Franchise.
To THE EDIroR OF THE ROANOKE TIMES: In
your criticism of tho ordinance for lighting Roam
okc with electric lights, among other objections
you have the following: Under the ordinance
it requires bare majority OF Council to consent
TO a transfer OF the franchise This il douby
wrong. First, II should take n three fourths ma
ioIiiy. Secondly, ii l. a papablc attempt to de-
resolution or ordinance may he passed OF his
right to veto under tn, charter. For this reason
the validity OF tho ordinance rs il stands. This
latter point is raised subject 10 correction. THE
TIMES in this point would prefer TO be wrong
but II wants its error demonstrated"
Assuming the sincerity OF THE TIMES in IT.
statement that it prefers to be wrong this
10 do that it should only be necessary to show
that tho provision objected TO cani.ot possibly
have that effect
stiintcs quorum 10 do business. At such
meeting n majority or tho members pre- ent can
pass r solution or ordinance. which, under the
charter, Is sent TO the mayor for his approval or
disapproyAl. There are certain executions 10
this rule expressed III the charter, 10 wit: ANY
resolution or ordinance Tor the expenditure OF
money must he passed by majority of the
whole Council Other matters require even Il
laryer vote by the charter, and the object OF the
committee in cngraiting TIC provision in the
light ordinance TO when YOU OBJECT was to place
this matter on a footing With the exceptions
prive whoever may he mayor at the time the
resolution or ordinance may he passed Of his right
To veto under tho charter. li- only circci i to
require an ordinance permitting Mackay " Co
to transfer their franchise 10 receive vote OF the
majority OF the whoc council before 1t becomes
II resolution To he sent to the mayor for his APP
prevail or disapprCvnl. should tho mayor disap-
prove of an ordinance 30 passed his right to veto
the same Is secured 10 him by section Is, chapter
3 of the charter, which section also rovdcs
how nh ordinance may he passed over the veto of
the mayor.
by section 4, chapter g. OF the charter among
other things, il is provided that majority OF the
members OF the Council shall constitute quo
rom for the transaction Of business, but ordi-
nance shall he passed or eSoiution adopted hay
iyg for Its object the appropriation of money! cx
ccpt hyiaconcnrrencc OF thcimaIority OF the Coun-
ell Now, docs the able editor OF THE TINES hold
That the mayor cannot veto resolution havin.
for its object the appropriation OF money:
ifno, why should he charge the committt o
on ligh's with an tempt To deprive the may or
when the committee has only thrown around the
passage OF tho ordinance in question those safe
guards the legislature has put under the passage
Of one having for it's object the apr opriAion OF
money
The committee on lights knew that effect tho
requirement. objected II by You, above
indicated and had no thought such i'm
pGtc to them. should apologize for this long
communications; the apology is That YOU require
actual de demonstration, not IL mere disclaimer As
to whether or not such an ordinance should be
passed by three fourths OF the entire Council is
matter OF opinion.
As to yolr other objections to the ordinance
they are deemed equally fa,'acjOUs tho ono
which have Just criticised, but will not he re
piled to through the papers, nor would this com
inunication have been written hut for the fact
that. in my estimation, you not only impcach tho
mo'ivcs or the light committee, hut that the C.
rect, probably the designed effect, To prcc y
| tatc mi understanding between the mayor unt
the light committee OF Council
MEMBER or THE LIGHT COMMITTEE.