The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-09-15
How Councilman Giblin's Resolution
Is Regarded.
COMMISSIONER SMITHS VIEWS.
He Thinks Passage OF Resolution Would
Be Injurious to the City While 1t
Would Also Compel Discharge Of Men
Who Have Rendered Faithful Service.

| Those who are In q position to speak
| with n certain degree OF authority say
the resolution introduced at the last meet
| ing OF the common council Dy
Councilman Giblin directing the
commissioner of public works TO
| give preference to taxpaying citizens
| IN emp Dyes of his department will not
be passed, even in the improbable event
of a favorable report upon it by the COM
mit.ee on ordinances to which it was re
| ferred.
INDEED Mr.. Giblin's resolution Is re-
I Rarded in certain quarters much In the
same light as Mayor Potter's ter
minal facilities message. That is.
there are people who are unkind
| enough to suggest that like the
| city's executive Mr.. Giblin Is fixing his
fences for the coming municipal
veloped solicitude for the taxpayer is
traceable to his desire to succeed himself
as representative OF the third ward in
| the lower branch of the city council.
Whether this is true or not it is certain
that not few persons hold that opinion
and do not hesitate To declare the resolu-
tion piece OF political buncombe.
What the Commissioner Says.
| This morning Commissioner Smith
| was asked his opidion OF the resolution.
| He aus yer d very promptly and decis vely
that he regardel it as wholly upneces-
sarv. $50 far AS know" he continued,
''the men employed by this department
are citizens Of Providence. They all
have homes here and their interest is
here. They are not hired through
labor contractors and they are not OF the
| floating class 1t Is possible that one or
| two persons who are not citizens
may have obtained employment but
do not know Of any such cases and
shoull find them the men will be re-
| placed by others who are citizens.
when we hire men here we do not ask
them with what party they vote or
whether they vote at all. II there is a
place open and n citizen applies
who appears abe TO do the
| work required Of him we put
him to work. That is all there is to it.
| Now, since the middle of July last,
we have not hired man and we
are now figuring to see how
we can arrange mattersto keep our. gangs
employed to ADVANTAGE until the board
Of aldermen meets next Thursday, when
undoubtedly large amount of street
work will be ordered"
The Probable Effect.
"How would the passage of this reso-
luton affect your department
"Very seriously. as you can readily
see. On tte highways we have about
500 meu employed and l think that
fully eight per cent. of these have beeu
in the employ of the city for many years.
In their line they are skilled workmen
aud the city gets the benefit Of their
experience.
"Now suppose / am compelled to dis
charge these men. no although citizens
do not happen to be taxpayers, al d put
in their places men who are tax
payers but who have never
hal any experience in highway
work. what do you think the result will
pes Won't the city have to pay for the
training Of these new men, won't public
work be delayed and will
not the expense be greatly
increased Certainly. Take a man
who has worked all his life
as n jeweler Of what us, would
he bs to us as paver, a
FOUNDER or even shoveller? Very
| little, / assure you. 1t is because
| The present employees render us good
service that we desire to keep them.
| Take the PAYERS and Founders, for
| instance, in the winter time
when there is no work
| in their particular line we employ them
at the stone crushers and in other ways
so that we always have men who are ex-
perienced In this kind Of work.
Deserve Consid Grafton.
"On this resolution of Mr.. Giblins I
have no criticisms to pass, further than
to say do not believe it would
bs to the best interests of the
city to have it passel. Besides the rea-
sons 1 have already given you for my
feeling on this matter there Is another
phase OF the question which ought not
to be lost sight Of. As have
said, about eighty per ceut. OF
our highway employees have been with
Us many years. They are faithful and
reliable men. Many OF them haye fami-
lies dependent upon them for
support. Does 1t seem reasonable
or Just that L should be compelled
to discharge tteso men aad deprive them
Of the means OF supporting their wives
aud children merely to make places for
the more fortunate property owner who
is temporarily out OF employment
els not the citizen who labors honestl y
to furnish shelter. food aud clothing for
his little ones, but who has not Been able TO
accumulate property entitled to as much
consid ration a. the man who owns his
| own home and in comparison with the
other would be regarded rs fortunatei
I ceitsinly do not think the reso-
| luton SHOULD pass in It's present form and
II amended so as To give preference To
citizens IL would simply be surplusage as
that has always been the practice Of this
department"
Not From n Yellow Fever Port.
II was reported this morning that n
vessel had arrived at quarantine from