The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-03
ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC
CAPITOL AVENUE WILL NOT DE SET
APART AS A BOULEVARD.
Council Kills the Ordinance--SpeciaI
Appropriation FaiIs-City Attor-
ney's Fight for More Money.

heavy traffic on Capitol avenue, and con-
sidered other matters of an interesting
ture. During the session many parliament
airy questions arose, and President Costello
was kept busy settling points motions,
amendments. reconssderations and motions
TO strike from the files and lay on the table.
Mr.. Costello was ably assisted by p. j.
Ryan, ex-member OF the Council, who occu-
pied a seat on the floor and interested him
self in the proceedings. Councilman Golfer
was the only absent one.
The appropriation ordinance was to
provide city salaries for the last quarter of
1895. Mr.. johnson claims the sum of So. $50 Il
is needed to meet the expenses for the
closing quarter OF this year. For the sweep
ing OF the streets $4,000 was asked, for paw
ing the viaduct with cedar blocks $500
was asked, and for water $500 was asked.
Money is also claimed to be needed for the
payment of the quarterly salaries. The
three Democratic members of the finance
committee reported favorably on the pas
sage of the ordinance. The two Republican
members were opposed. The minority re-
port was promptly laid the table and
the majority report adopted. Councilmen
Cooper and Allen forced the ordinance to a
vote by having it engrossed. The vote was
taken. resulting in thirteen votes for the
passage and seven against 1t. The vote was
as follows:
Ayes-Gark. Dewar, Dudley. Kirkhoff.
Madden, Montgomery, OConnor, Ohleyer,
Rauch, Sherer, Smith, Wolcott, Costello.
'Nays-Allen, Cooper Murphy, Payne, Pur-
year, Shaffer, Woody.
1t requiring a two-thirds vote to author
lie an appropriation, the ordinance failed to
pass. Mr.. Allen in explaining his vote, said
appropriations had been made for this year,
m mt Inn inc av-
penses. Mr.. Cooper said he found there had
been appropriations for this year. and an
Ytnea PeIS h woud mean more aep,
this case, that next years appropriations
would be accessible by the time Mr.. John
would initiate the expenditures of this year
at the mercy of those for next.
The Capttol-avenue ordinance was strck-
war, Dudley, Kirkhoff, Madden, Montgom-
cry. Murphy, OConnor, Shaffer, Sherer
Smith and Woody voted to strike out the
ordnance, while Councilman Allen, Cooper,
Ohleyer, Payne, Puryear, Rauch, Wolcott
and Costello voted the other side Mr..
Cooper attempted to amend the ordinance
by specifying that no vehicle exceeding in
weight three thousand pounds should be al
lowed on the new macadam pavement. Coun-
Gilman Madden made the motion TO strike
from the files ''in behalf of the taxpayers
of indianapolis" Councilman Wolcott
thought one street should be preserved for
driving purposes from pride in the city,
were protected, the residents of all other
improved streets should be granted the same
protection.
RAISING MIR. BELLS SALARY.
The ordinance raising the salary of the
deputy city attorney from $1,000 to 81 500 a
year and making the city attorney other
minor allowances met stormy opposition.
Mr.. Curtis and Mr.. Bell, the latter having
vital interest in the passage of the ordi-
nance. were present to urge its passage
Councilman Dudley insisted the ordinance
had gone to the wrong committee, as the
finance committee had reported on it, where
as the committee ION fees and salaries
| should have the consideration Of It. Mr..
back TO the salary COMMITTEES, but Presi-
| dent Costello ignored the motion, although
| committee recommended a passage, while
the minority objected for the reason that
Section q of the charter says: Nor shall
| appointment of a person to Office until his
term expires or his office is vacated
Mr. Allen waved this section in the. faces
| lively, and there was some confusi,l Il. He
said the LAWYER who drew the ordinance
agd he ny ts of of s shs char
ordinance from the files. AT the
| same time a motion was made to en-
gross the ordinance, which carried Cctr-
! the Republicans. Mr.. Curtis being present
he was asked if the ordinance was legal
his objection. and then Mr.. Curtis arose to
explain. He said he had no doubt what
ever but the ordinance was legal He sal
| ity. but he did not explain. promising to
! furnish the Council with a xr,..en opinion
| Mr.. Curtis went on to say lie ordinance
the law department and $40 for office ex.
| penses. Mr.. Curtis said nothing is row
| allowed for office expenses, while the city
important work Mr.. Allen askci the cit
| attorney IL the allowance FOL- office rent
was not an indirect increase Of his salary,
| and Mr.. Curtis replied that It was not
| Mr.. Cooper stated the last administration
had hrst-class city attorney. who had an
assistant paid go, and no office rent Vas
asked to be paid. neither was stenog-
rapher. Mr. Cooper said there had been
no squandering of money. The vote on the
final passage was not taken, Ii being decid-
| ed to first give Mr.. Curtis an opportunity
to satisfactorily explain the charter
JANITORSHIP ORDINANCE.
| The majority OF the finance committee
recommended the passage of the ordinance
! creating another janitorsbip in the court
house basement The minority opposed the
ordinance for the reason that it would
create another position contrary to the
spirit of the charter. The minority report
was given cold reception, while that
from the majority was adopted, but no
| vote was taken on the ordinance.
| Councilman Ohleyer introduced an ordin-
| ance governing the sidewalks and streets
| around buildings under construction. The
| full possession of sidewalks ana streets
| is denied contractors. The latter must pro-
| vide walks past new buildings. Where ac-
! cess to the basement or first floors of the
buildings is desired by the contractors, an
| elevated walk must be provided with steps
| at either end for pedestrians. People
must also be protected from falling bricks
| or stone by roofs oyer the walks. Con-
| tractors are compelled to occupy less than
| one-third of sidewalk. For a violation OF
| the ordinance a fine of from s. 10 500 may
| be made Councilman Rauch introduced an
! ordinance compelling all gates TO swing
| inward and not across the sidewalks. The
! ordinance went to the committee on COM
| fort and safety. Property are
given sixty days after the passage of the
1 ordinance TO make changes in the gates
| For q violation of the ordinance person
\ may be fined not more than $50.
Councilman Wolcott introduced the care
| Health which is designed 10 govern ths
| sale of milk. The committee on publis
| health will consider the ordinance. which
gives to the board the right TO control
| the sale of milk in the city. All dealers
| in milk must procure from the health de-
partment license, costing one dollar. The
| department. is 10 have the right TO inspect
| dairies. milk, and wagons, and makes rules
| concerning the sales. For a violation OF
| the law, by the sale of impure milk.
| dealer may he fined from s. TO ,Sl09, tS
| which may be added Imprisonment not Il
exceed sixty days. The department ma,