Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-13
THE MAYOR ABSOLUTE.
Controller Morrow's Position, if Cor
rect, Gives the Executive
MORE POWER THAN THE CHIEFS.
He Can Annul ALI Contracts by Refusing
to Sign Them.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MILLIONS

| "A question OF considerable 1mportanc
was raised at City Hall yesterday in con
nection with the fight now on between tn
Mayor and Controller on one side and tn
department chiefs and City Councils on tn
other, in which is involved the Mayor
right to approve or disapprove city con
tracts.
The claim is made, and it seems vel
founded, that if the Controllers position a
indicated in his communication to Council
last Monday, is sustained by the courts, th'
Mayor will have far more absolute powe
in the letting of contracts than the depart
ment chiefs and Councils combined. II
fact he will be able, it is claimed, by simply
doing nothing when a contract distastefu
to him, either for legal, personal Oh
other reasons, is presented, to totally pre-
vent its being awarded or carried out in any
way. The same line of argument, it i:
claimed, makes every contract entered into
for the city since 1874, including the nine o,
ten years of the present Controllers tenure
of Office, illegal, and every dollar
of the many millions expended has been
improperly and illegally spent.
|
Briefly stated, tine Controllers position is
that the approval of contract or any other
measure of Councils is either joint resolu-
tion of Councils or must be by joint resolu-
tlon, and as such must 60 to the Mayor for
| approval. The general verdict of City Hall
people is that the position is untenable and
the customs of Congress and various State
Legislatures are quoted to show it. 1t
is claimed that when the charter
act of 1887 gave to the chiefs of depart
ments executive powers equaling the
Mayors in all respects, save the wide range
of supervision of the city, it authorized
them to enter into any contract or other
agreement necessary in the operation of
their department, subject to the approval
of Councils.
If it had been intended by the trainers of
that act to give the Mayor the authority the
Controller claims is implied, they would
have inserted some provision for having a
contract passed over the Mayors disap-
proval, it is claimed, instead of leaving it
so that, if the Mayor chose not to sign a
contract, it would fall and could not by
any other power in the city government be
awarded or carried out That, it is claimed,
would be the result if the Controllers posi-
tlou suoulu prove 10 De cOrrect.
Neglect to Sign Would Veto.
If contract for building free bridge,
for instance. should come before the Mayor,
not necessarily the present incumbent, but
his successor, and he should have some
reason not to wish the successful bidder to
get the contract, all he would need to do
would be to refuse to sign the contract
That would settle it. No bridge could be
hui n o. l..
Mayor received the award, or until new
Mayor would be elected.
There is no provision anywhere in the
city laws for the Mayors signature to a
contract. In the case of an ordinance or
resolution it is provided that if the Mayor
fails to show his approval or disapproval,
either by his signature or his veto, within
a period of ten days after final passage, the
measure becomes law, and if he chooses to
veto three-ffths vote of Councils is neces.
sary to pass over the disapproval. There Is
nothing of the kind in the case of con-
tract.
Il is claimed, however, that the Com
troller is wrong on this question, despite
his quotations from the law and apparent
familiarity with the subject unless the
charter act itself is unconstitutional. AS to
that point, it is claimed no act could be
constitutional that would give the executive
more power than the legislative body over
which his authority extends. One section
of the charter act says:
''The head of each department shall make
reports to Councils of the condi-
tion of his department, showing the number
of employees, the character of contracts
made by his department, the state of its
finances and such other matters as he may
deem worthy of their consideration"
Arguments of the Other Side.
AS there is no provision for the Mayors |
of the contracts of depart |
ment, the above is quoted as showing con-
that the chiefs have power to |
award contracts. The ordinance passed to |
put the charter act into effect, they |
say, is sufficient. 1t provides that the chiefs |
may let contracts subject to the approval of |
and, it is claimed, nothing further
is necessary-the one ordinance covers ALL |
Any number of contracts can be let under |
it, as any number have been for many wears
past. The same line of argument, it is
claimed, that would give the Mayor the
right to approve a contract would require
his signature to every pay roll of every
bureau of the city government every month
in the year, and they could not be paid
without it.
All the discussion going on in relation to
his important subject refers to the prin-
,iple, not the present Mayor. The ground
IS generally taken that the present Mayor
night be succeeded by Democrat, or pos
ibly corruptible person might some days
ret the place. Ifpolitically biased he could
practically stop the wheels of government
md if corrupt could make $500, 900 year
'ut of his office-if the Controllers position
S correct.