St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-31
DOGS IRE ON TOP
BOARD OF ALDERMEN FAIL TO
PASS AN ORDI-
NANCE.
FESTIVE CANNES FREE
FROM THE PURSUIT OF DOG
CATCHERs A WHILE
LONGER @ess7-
DISCUSSION BECOMES, WARM,
And Slightly Personal ut That
The Market Question Also
BObs Up. t-s -
DISCUSSION BECOMES WARM


mon council. History repeated itself
last night when the board of alder
men failed to pass an ordinance pro-
viding for the appointment of dog
catcher. trsfE.t:
Dog ordinances and resolutions are
| almost as common as the dogs them
selves, and as the most amicable
neighbors have been known to take
sides with their dogs in a fight, so
did two members of the board of
aldermen wax wroth in supporting
their respective dog ordinances, and
finding fault with the other fell
lows.
The discussion opened tamely and
| was conducted soberly only until
the close of the last act, when the
| climax appeared.
The discussion was provoked by
the introduction of Aid. Markham's
| ordinance, providing for the appoint
ment by the mayor of one dog catch
er only, who shall receive twenty
| five cents for each dog licensed or
| drowned by him, who shall provide
| pound for the detention of the dogs
for a period of three days, and who
shall drown the dogs whose owners
| do not redeem them within the
| specified time by securing license
| for them. The ordinance also pro-
| vided that the health commissioner
shall witness the drowning of the
| dogs in order to ensure a correct
return by the dog catcher of the
number drowned, that the dog catch
er shall be appointed for three
months only, that he should furnish
the dog pound, feed the dogs and
| hire all dog catchers at his own ex-
pense.
Aid Murphy opposed the passage
of the ordinance at this time. 1t
would have been all right two
months ago, but it was too late now.
The assembly resolution providing
for the appointment of six dog
catchers was the only proper meas
ure to pass in Aid. Murphy's opin-
ion. Aid. Murphy also called atten-
ton to the fact that he had intro
duced a similar ordinance to that
submitted by Aid. Markham, but it
had been defeated by the very vote
of Aid. Markham.
Aid Markham moved that the
rules be suspended in order that
the ordinance might be put upon
it's passage. The motion was carried
by a vote of 7 to 2. Thereupon Aid
Markham moved the passage of the
ordinance. The vote on the passage
Of the" ordinance was exactly the
same-7 to 2-Ald. Murphy and Hare
noting no
Vice President Montgomery de-
clared that the ordinance failed tC
pass, as it requires a two-thirds vote
of the entire board of aldermen tC
pass a measure calling for the eX
penditure of money. Aid. Hare, il
explaining his vote, declared tha
he was in favor of concuIT-ing with
the assembly ordinance, providing
. for the appointment of six dog
catchers, but assigned no specific
reason for opposing Aid. Markham:
ordinance.
On motion Of Aid. Markham the vot
by which his ordinance was defeated
was reconsidered by a vote of 7 to
and the ordinance was laid on the ia
: BILE. This occasioned a cessation o
the debate until the assembly resolu
ton directing the mayor to appoin
six dog catchers came before tn
board. Then there was a time.
Aid. Murphy moved the adoption O
the assembly resolution. The resolu
ton was defeated by a vote of to ;
Aid. Murphy, Hare and Kartak vot
ing mo" Aid. Milham then move
that the Markham ordinance be take
from the table, and this was done, bu
the two opposing votes of Aid. Nun
ply and Hare convinced Aid. Mark
ham that his ordinance would agai
fail to get the necessary eight vote:
so he asked that the ordinance be re
ferred to a proper committee. In max
ing this motion, Aid. Markham CAV
;. Aid. Murphy the cue for a warm re
Spouse, which in turn brought a sti
hotter retort from Markham. The la
ter pointed out the distinction bt
J. tween his ordinance and Murphy
He gave Murphy the credit of fathel
ing the first ordinance but pointed OIL
the fact that it allowed the dog catcl
er an additional compensation Of $50
month from the city treasury. Nor
over it put no limit on his time
service, whereas his ordinance pr,
vided for only three months. AL
Markham concluded with, these word
81 do not doubt that these gentleme
,. Aid. Murphy and Hare, have their re
n sons for opposing this ordinance. B
whatever reasons they are they a
outside of the ordinance ITSELF
Aid TJara defaafo5 tho fara,oo
an instant, and resented it with the +
Spouse:
aid. Markham evidently wants
throw the responsibility for delayil
the matter upon Aid. Murphy and me
ia But Aid. Markham called the. bl,
by retorting:
81 say these two men do stand he
in the light of obstructionists, and mu
be held responsible if no ordinan
D. regulating this matter is passed.
Aid. Murphy couldn't stand this ]
accordingly informed the alderm
that he had understood that A
Markham had declared that he wou
never vote for any measure that wor
give Mayor Smith the authority to q
point a dog catcher
Il brand that statement as absolu
ly false" exclaimed Aid Markham.
was toio you Salu tnat, explain
Aid. Murphy.
well, am not responsible for VIII
you are told" rejoined Aid Mar
ham. ''You ought not to- come in
M this council and make such sta
eo ment upon hearsay. As for May
90 Smith, I will say right here that 1 &
60 willing to leave the appointment of a
Dc city official within the gift of the pc
IS. pie in the hands of Robert A. Smi
This very ordinance of mine vests t
mayor with the power of appoil
ment. Mayor Smiths appointmel
"A are, as rule, good. I opposed the
sembly resolution for other reaso
" principally because it calls for
dog catchers at $50 a month, each
be paid out of the general fund
stead OF providing for dog catcl
.. whose compensation shall depend UT