The morning call., 1893-04-12
1T is PUBLISHED.
Mayor EIlert's Message Is
Perfectly Safe.
WILL BE CALLED UP AGAIN.
The Board May Be Mandamused by
the Mayor and Rogers Resolution
Tested i'm the Courts.

1t was the leading topic OF interest yes
terday.
Nobody seems to understand Ii, or to
know what is going to be done.
Neither Mayor, nor Supervisors, nor
Spring Valley men, nor rate-payers know
exactly where they stand.
All of this confusion resulted from the
action of the Board Of Supervisors on Mon
day night.
A water ordinance had been passed, the
Mayor. following what he thought was his
duty under the law, and established prece-
dent in the exercise of the veto power, had
sent the ordinance back 10 the board with
his disapproval.
Such had been the custom OF the clty's
executive since the organization of the mu-
nicipal governing power in case he disap-
proved OF any measure.
The veto message was received and
ordered published according 10 the usual
custom. Objection was raised, but the
Mayor had been too quick for his oppo-
nents, and when they tried TO set aside the
order to publish the veto, they were ruled
out of order, as the proper lime had passed.
Later In the evening. under the head OF
new business, Supervisor Rogers introduced
resolution declaring that Under the cOnsti-
tuition OF the State the power TO make water
rates was vested exclusively in the Board
OF Supervisors. and that the Mayor had no
right to exercise the veto as far as this
ordinance was concerned.
The resolution embodied a provision that
the board declare the Mayors veto of no
effect, and take no action in the matter.
Seven Supervisors voted for the resolution,
and il was carried,
After the meeting the question arose
whether the adoption of the resolution did
NOT nullliy the previous order OF Mayor
Ebert ordering the veto message to be spread
an oh har M
wlplng II out OF existence altogether. and
leaving the ordinance 10 stand as q city law.
Clerk John Russell so believed, aud ex-
pressed himself very empha.caly. saying
that the resolution declaring that the board
take no action on the Mayors veto obliter-
ated 1t entirely. He said that he would
obey the orders OF the board, and SO told
Mayor Ebert in the anteroOm of the board.
The seven Supervisors who voted to
deprive the Mayor Of mis- veto power were
1ubllant at the success of the coup d'etat of
Supervisor Rogers. All on the inside knew
that those who engineered the ordinance in
the interest of the Spring Valley lacked
one vote TO pass 1t over the Mayors veto.
1t was also known that the most strenuous
efforts had been made TO get Supervisor
James to join the water coterie, but that he
had refused TO join the majority. The
result was the Inspiration OF the Rogers
resolution, the last resort OF fallen cause.
The resolution succeeded, and that was
Il,
because they thought the veto message
would not be printed and was pullifed,
thereby allowing the ordinance to stand.
Clerk Russell said the veto message would
not be printed. The water Supervisors
thought they were all right. So did Spring
Valley and Attorney Herrin.
But the message was printed, and in the
official papers, too, and signed at that as an
official document Of the board by the clerk,
John Russell.
Tho On rule a..
Rogers resolution would allow the ordinance
to stand as law. They were mistaken,
The Mayors veto Will come up again Mt the
next meeting of the board. and must be
again acted upon. because IL is completed
under the law, and by its publication has
gone through all tie necessary forms.
The Supervisors at the next meeting will
probably take the same action as that taken
at the last session. The question will then
arise. docs the ordinance stahdo"
The water Supervisors may think so, and
rest on their oars. who Will take it to the
courts?" they say.
The Mayor will give them an answer be-
fore long.
1t was understood Yesterday at the City
Hall that he had been studying the situa-
ton very carefully and had decided upon
what course 10 pursue. The statement was
made that he intended to mandamus the
board and compel them TO show cause in
the courts why they should not perform
thSil ouNg W AWFUL VI utS N6lO MES
sage.
The basis of the Mayors mandamus pro-
ceedlng, 1t was said, will rest upon section
of the consolidation act which makes it
the duty OF the Mayor to "vigilantly OBJ
serve The official conduct of eacn Supervisor
in his district, and Of all public officers of
the city and county, and take note of the
fidelity and exactitude, or the want thereof,
with which they execute their duties and
obligations"
L. .
claim that the Supervisors have not properly
performed their duties on the subject OF the
veto message, and under the section of the
consolidation act referred TO will mandamus
the board TO compel them to take action in
the matter
A reporter of THE CALL visitsd Mayor
Ebert 10 his Office yesterday afternoon. and
asked him what steps he proposed to take
in regard to the action of the Board OF Su-
pervlsors In declaring that he had no power
to veto water ordinance, because the cOnsti-
tuition did not give him that privilege
Il propose to stand by my rights" said
Mayor Ebert, who is always vigorous and
straightforward in his manner and language.
1T would not be digniied in me to say
much at this time, but you may say that /
don't propose to let this thing pass by. |
will do my duty to the people. and the mat
Ter will go to the courts. or course l can
not tell what action the courts may take
but whatever they decide they must assume
the responsibility"
Mayor Ebert woald not tell Just bow hs
proposed TO bring the subject before the
courts, because he said he did not desire 10
get into any controversy. He was very
emphatic in saving that the matter, with
out any doubt, would come before the
courts. and the question as to whether he
had veto power over water ordinances or
not quickly decided.
III 1 have no power TO veto water
ordnance" said the Mayor. Il have no
power to veto hundreds of other ordinances,
such as those that relate to gas, special
privileges and the expenditures of public
moneys.
Supervisor Denman talked very vigor-
ously on the middle in which the water
question is now. He said:
why, don't think there is any question
at all oil the Mayor winning his fight. He
has the best of every argument. The prop
osition advanced by Supervisor Rogers Is
most untenable one. l have devoted con-
siderable study to questions affecting the
municipal government and differ most
proposition that the Mayor is not men,
Der of the Board of Supervisors.
supervisor Rogers claims that he Is
merely presiding officer. My contention
Is that he is as much amember as any of us,
and that he is an integral part of the board.
We as a board are created and act under
the consolidation act. The board was not
created by the constitution. Consequently
we derive all our source Of power from that
charter. The Mayor does the same.
Now the consolidation act expressly de-
clares that the Mayor is a member OF the
board, and an integral part thereof As a
member, therefore, he has a right to par
ticipate In the settlement of the water ques-
ton.
again, Supervisor Rogers says that the
constitution does not expressly say that
the Mayor shall have either a voice or vote
on the water question. am not lawyer,
but l think that Supervisor Rogers should
know that the constitution Is the organic
law Of tie State. 1t cannot contain any
special or class provisions. In the section
dealing with the water question it refers to
Boards of Supervisors 1t could not very
we'll have contained any reference to May
ors. 1 will tell you why. 1t is because
there are many counties in the State which
contain Boards of Supervisors and in which
there are no Mayors. That Is why the
Mayor was not mentioned In the section,
because 1t would have been class legislation.