The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-12-18
ROANOKE, VA, DECEMBER is, 1892.
THAT ELEorn1o LIGHT ORDINANCE.

THAT ELECTRIC LIGHT ORDINANCE.
Elsewhere appears lengthy COM
munication from a we'll known member
of the light committee of Council THE
TINES cheerfully crowds out valuable
matter to give it room as the letter
illustrates moro wildly than score of
editorials the peculiar mental haze
which is responsible for the electric
light ordinance as passed Friday night.
The principal point is as to the con-
struction to be put upon the tenth Sec
tion Of the ordinance as quoted below:
10. The said franchise herein granted To the
said W. II. MacKay & Co. shall he construed ms a
person al privilege, and shall not he sold, trans
fcrrcd or otherwise dspoacd of, nor shall tho
p.antwith its appliances, any portion thereof,
bc sold. transferred otherwise disposed OF,
without the consent of the Common Council OF
the city of Roanoke evidenced by resolution or
an ordinance adopted by the said Common Coun.
Gil at regular or special meeting, in which
majority of the entire Council shall confirm the
said ordinance OF resolution.
The "member of the ligh committee"
claims emphatically that if this electric
light ordinance is approved by the
mayor, and at any subseq uent dare a
transfer OF the plant and franchise to a
third party is contemplated, the then
mayor will not be deprived of his right
to veto the ordinance or resolution as
senting TO the transfer To prove this
position by analogy our correspondent
refers to section 4, chapter 3 Of the char
ter, which provides that mo ordinance
Shall be passed or resolution adopted
having for its object the appropriation
OF money except by concurrence of a
majority OF the Council" and then
triumphantly asks ii we hold that the
mayor cannot veto resolution having
for its object tho appropriation OF
money?
We deny the correctness of the
analogy. Tho mayor could neither veto
nor approve an ordinance which ''i not
comply with these requirements for the
simple reason that it could not reach
him until the requirements had been
complied with.
The tenth section of the ordinance is
singularly explicit. threads, shall not
be sold without the consent of tho
common council of the city of Roanoke,
evidenced by a resolution or ordinance,
etc." The position of THE TINES has
since been fortified by able legal coun.
sci (though there are i'll two sides to
every contentiOn), That tue adoption Of
this ordinance does evade the veto
power OF the mayor on a transfer ap-
proved by resolution of council.
II the ordinance had read without
the consent Of tho mayor" without the
consent of the city engineer, without
the consent OF the board of public
works" there would have been no
doubt in anyone's mind that the sole
consent of either would have been suffi.
cient to ratify any transfer. Then why
not construe section 10 strictly as it
reads? A ''resolution is sufficient tn
authorize transfer. A resolution is
not an ordinance. 1t is very different
thing. The veto power OF the MAYOR is
confined to ordinances. This NAV be
news to some people, possibly to mem
bers of Council, but tho charter SAWS:
mo ordinance OF Council shall become
law until approved and signed by the
mayor 1t does not refer to resclu
tions.
But to show further the hole through
which yoke of oxen may be driven
Who are w. H. MacKay & Co.? Who
C onstitute the company? We will wager
that our correspondent does not know
Does the Honorable Member of tn,
Light Committee think that section Il
of the ordinance, even allowing Cor tho
argument that his position is sound
will prevent the ''& Co." from oxp,nd
ing indefinitely and tho other clt
from contracting, until 1t resera Bic.