Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-07-26

Council There were but few specta
tors without the bars of either cham
Der.
BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
Seven Aldermen were present, and
some debate was elected by the bust
ness presented.
Mr.. Leadbeater, from the committee
on public property, reported in favor Of
granting the petition of sundry persons
who desire to construct at their own
expense footway through Penny Hill
burying ground to the other cemeteries
The petition was signed by half dozen
persons who reside in the southwestern
section of the city. Mr.. Leadbeater
spoke in favor of the report and ex-
planned the object of the petitioners.
Mr.. Goodrich thought there had ever
been footway through Penny Hill
burying ground F; but if other cemete-
ries had closed their gates he did not
desire to force them to make outlets to
Penny Hill.
Mr.. Hinken opposed the proposed
roadway. He believed Penny Hill
should be fenced off and not allowed to
be a tramping ground for people who
had no business within its precincts.
There WAS already pathway through
it. Bethel cemetery had closed its
gates to everybody, and there was now
but one cemetery left open-the South
ern Methodist
Mr.. Goodrich did not desire it to be
understood that he was opposed to the
right of way through the grounds if
was convenience to any one.
Mr.. Hinken said he would favor
granting the petition provided the trus-
tees of other cemeteries were willing to
open their gates to parties passing
through Penny Hill.
Mr. Sweeney said he had always sup
posed there was an entrance from Pen
ny Hill into other cemeteries ; other
wise there would have been no purpose
in the petition before the board. He
could see no real reason for Directing TO
the roadway, and spoke in advocacy of
it.
Mr.. Leadbeater said he didn't sup
pose when he presented the report it
would have caused so much debate.
He succinctly and plainly described
what the petitioners wanted-a path
way through Penny Hill to the other
cemeteries, which they were willing
to construct at their own expense.
They had secured the consent of those
having charge of other burying grounds
to effect entrances from Penny Hill.
He also described the inconvenience
people are now subjected to in passing
from Penny Hill to the other ceme-
teries by reason of barb wire fencing.
Mr.. Goodrich said he had misunder-
stood the purport ofthe petitioners and
withdrew his objection.
The report was adopted.
Mr.. Burke introduced resolution,
which was adopted, providing that
when Council ad ourned it be until the
second Tuesday in October,
Mr.. Carlin introduced resolution
calling on the Corporation Attorney for
his opinion as to The power of the City
Council, in the face of a recent decision
of the Court of Appeals, to enforce the
payment by property owners of one
third of the cost of street paving as
provided by the 33d section of the city
charter; also whether the city, un1er
the present charter, can issue bonds for
such improvements.
Mr.. Carlin said large number of the
people of Alexandria were in favor OF
embarking in systematic street i'm
provements, and he was one of them.
The Court of Appeals, however, had
decided in q case which had come up
from Norfolk that abutting property
owners could not be compelled to pay
one-third of the cost as had been the
custom heretofore. In the face of this
decision he did not see how they could
be, but the object of the resolution was
to ascertain the difference between the
charter of this city and that of Norfolk,
and to have some legal opinion con-
corning the matter. If this decision ap-
piled equally to Alexandria, street i'm
provements hereabouts, for time at
least, would necessarily be on limit
ed scale. He wanted to know, though
what could be done, and to this end he
introduced the resolution. He doubted
whether the city could issue bonds I'm,
der the charter, but wanted an opinion
on that subject also.
Mr.. Goodrich said he would not an.
tagonize the resolution, as he also de,
sired the information sought. He,
however, did not believe the city could
issue bonds under the present charter
he wished it could, as he was in favor
of street improvements.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr.. Carlin then introduced q resolu-
ton calling upon the city surveyor fol-
an estimate of the cost of sewering the
entire city.
Mr.. Burke could see no utility in the
resolution. The surveyor would desire
pay for his estimate which would en-
tail some labor on his part: And then,
too, new surveyor might be elected
after the estimate had been handed in
and he might have a different idea con.
corning the cost and thus plans would
be disarranged,
Mr.. Carin advocated the adoption oil
the resolution, and said estimates had
been made by which it had been shown
that the Second and Third wards could
be severed at moderate cost. The OBJ,
ject of the resolution was mere
ly to gain information. Council
could refuse to embark in the enter,
prise if after the surveyor shall have
made his report they deem the cost toe
great. He only desired to see what
could be done,
Mr.. Goodrich favored sewering the
town, but he regarded the resolution as