Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-01-25
VETOED BY THE MAYOR
The I lectric Light Ordinance Vetoed
by the Mayor in Council
Last Night. .
Text of the Veto, Showing His
Reasons For Withholding APP
prevail Therefrom.
The Council Will Meet Again t,
Take Final Action Tomorrow
Night.
From Tuesdays Daily.1
CitV COunci1

City Council.
The city council met last night, with
Mayor Leslie presiding, and all alder
men present but Nh. Mcbride. The
minutes of the preceding meetings were
read and approved, and the mayor then
transmitted his veto of the electric light
ordinance, as follows:
BISMARCK, N. D., Jan. g., 1895.
10 the City Council of the City of Bis
marck.:
GENTLEMEN The ordinance, entitled
an ordinance granting a license to Ed
mund A. Hughes, his successors or assigns,
the right to erect poles, string wires for
electric light purposes in the streets or al
leys or elsewhere in the city of Bismarck,
county of Burleigh, and state OF North Da-
kOta, for a period of twenty (20) years,
which ordinance is composed OF eighL (8)
sections, and is hereto attached, has been
handed to me as mayor of the city of Bis
marck for my approval or disapproval, asI
may see fit. After having carefully read
and duly considered the said ordinance
passed by your honorable body, [ have to
return the same herewith with my veto or
~dlsapproval OF the same for the following
reasons:
First. l believe it to be detrimental to the
best interests of the city Of Bismarck to
grant exclusive rights and privileges for
any purposes. l believe that the city should
receive a revenue, if it was to grant a right
or the exercise OF a right to any person to
be used for commercial purposes. particu-
larly where the granting of that right is to
continue, as the ordinance in this case pro-
vides, for a period of twenty (2O) years,
without an expression having first been
taken thereon by a vote of the people inter-
eSted.
Second. The ordinance was not given
such careful, full and due consideration, as
in nv judgment the Importance of the sub
ject demands, but the same was passed
through in more of a hurried manner than
Is considered exactly proper for so import
ant a subject.
Third. There was not a full council
present at its passage, and to take into con-
sideration the privileges granted thereby.
Fourth: Under the provisions OF the Or
dlnance, it at any time within the next
twenty (20) years a board Of aldermen
should be elected who saw fit to order cleo
trio lights for the city. 1t would bind the
people of the city to pay an expense OF not
less than eighteen hundred ($l,S0O) dollars
per year for a period OF ten years from the
time of the ordering of such lights, ire
spective of what might be the financial
conditions or needs OF the city. l do not
believe in the contracting OF any debt that
the city would not be benefited in contract
ing for its good, and this does not seem to
me to be such a debt. 1t is generally under
stood that the good OF the city depends on
the fact that no city council contract obi
cations for the city that could not be pro-
vided for during the office OF the then
elected council. AS this does more than
that, l will pass to that provision in the
ordinance.
Fifth. Electrical appliances and mater.
lal for electrical purposes have improved
so rapidly within the past few years, that
it seems TO me unWise and ineXpeditiOus to
contract or grant privileges for a period of
twenty (2O) years in relation to electric
light or power.
Sixth. If al individual can construct a
plant under an ordinance of this kind, and
have it considered a good financial invest
ment, then l see no reason why the city
may not receive the benefits that an indi-
vidIai would, by the owning Of its own
city is not in a financial condition to justify
this being done, | am very much in
hopes that long before the expiration of
even one-half the time the franchise is
asked for, the city Will be able to own its
own electric light plant.
Seventh. Another person than MIR.
Hughes, submitted in writing to the city
council a proposition which would amend
the ordinance SO that the city would not be
bound to take lights to exceed the term OF
II year, should they elect to take them
and the lights would only cost 35 cents
each per night. instead of so cents, as the
ordinance passed by you provides, max.
ing a saving to the city of $3.50 per year. ]
will say, however, in all cand0r, that had
the ordinance been SO amended and passed
taking into consideration other things con.
nected with the ordinance, | am of the i'm.
preston that l would have returned the
same as disapproved by me.
For the reasons l have hereinbefore
given, l beg to return to your honorable
body, the said ordinance passed by you, or
the evening of December 31st, 1894, as We
tOed by me, and without my approval. ]
have the honor to be,
Very respectfully yours,
A. n. LESLIE,
Mayor.
The council postponed action upon the
veto until Wednesday evening of this
week. Adjourned.
Irons Kicks Back,
Col. Frank H.. Irons does not believe
in allowing the state of North Dakots
to be misrepresented. In a recent letter