New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1892-08-10
COUNTY. .MINN. WEDNEsDAY, AUGUST 10 Is
his co-laborers in the council q similar
appreciation Of their duties

] his co-laborers in the council q similar
appreciation Of their duties.
AT their session TuesdaTs night the
council among other things took two im-
portant steps. One of these was in ac-
cepting a proposition from Ne. Mullen as
president sof the Citizens Bank to the eff
/ feet that he would advance the city S r.
500 at per cent'interest on monthly bal-
ances providing the members Of the coun-
Gil and the mayor would insure the loan
with their individual guarantee. In We
toeing this procedure the mayor says:
/ The resolution adopting the report of
the finance committee providing for the
acceptance of the offer of M. Mullen of
the Citizens Bank to furnish $17,S00 on
the individual guarantee ef the members
of the city council and the mayor is We
| toed. The reason for this is that no mem
| Der of the council or the mayor can be
compelled to give individual guarantee
| for the payment of the city debt. The
mayor wishes to inform you that he for
one will not lend his name in that man
ner, especially when the city is in debt
and the council through its street COM
mittee keeps on making unnecessary inn
| provements to swell the debt to still
greater proportions. The matter is a
nullity anyhow and ] do not desire to
append my name to it as receiving my
approval.
The other step was in allowing bills
for work on Third North Street in direct
opposition to communication from the
mayor which appears elsewhere. The
veto which follows is unquestionably the
most interesting and important verhan-
ded in by any executive officer of the ci
ty and has succeeded in causing an unus-
ual ripple of nervousness among some of
the members of the street committee.
The mayor is very pointed in his remarks
and it will be well to watch their action
in receiving it officially. Here is. the.
veto:
The resolution or action of the city
council allowing certain bills, marked
by me with a cross,or where the amount
vetoed is noted on margin of record in
front of claimants name, fourteen bills
in ally, is hereby vetoed. The reasons
appear already partially in my last COM
munication to your honorable body,
dated August 1st, 1892. l wish to add,
however, that these bills are for work
done on Third street north which was
not approved by me. AS between the
city council through its street commit
tee and the mayor, the resolution au-
thorizing the work is to be considered
vetoed for the reason that the street
committee promised the undersigned not
to undertake the work until the means
therefor should be provided as the reso-
luton would have been vetoed by. me
had they not promised not to undertake
any further work. If they forgot their
promise, do not propose to forget
mine. There has already been work
done on that street amounting to
S535, and it will take
! at least $500 more to complete
| it and make it respectable. There was
no necessity whatever to disturb this
street as. it was. in good condition We
have other places, if money must be
Ispent which we do not have, where the
city can derive some benefit and this
your honorable body knows as well as
do. In short there being no necessity
on hand, the street committee
had no business to go on
with the work after they had
promised not to do so, when the treas
llry is empty and the city needs $17,SOO
to carry it through the year.
This veto is not intended to be and
will be Of no hardship to the men who
did the work, as those who hired or or
dered them to do the work are liable to
them for their pay.
The mayor regrets that he has been
taken advantage of in this matter as
outlined herein.
Benedict will be Chairman.