The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-05-08

Mayor BaSkln was turned down at
the council meeting last night, his veto
Of the last appropriation list being
oVerruled by q unanimous vote.
The mayors position in the matter
was criticised in a friendly spirit. no
acrimonious debate being INDUCED in.
His position cannot be stated more
clearly than it is in the veto itself
which is herewith given.
The Veto.
I herewith return disapproved the
appropriation list passed by the city
council April 80. 1895, for the follow
ing reasons:
The item of $3.50 in favor of John Nc.
Rae L find, upon investigation, is in
part payment for certain real estate in
( Parley's canyon, the contract for pur-
/ chase of which was made secretly and
was not submitted to me for approval.
The first and only knowledge of the
transaction came to me when inquiry
was made as to what the appropriation
Of $3.50 was made for. The only form
in which the matter has been presep-
ted to me officially was said appropriate
ton list.
! also find an item of S4OO in favor Of
". S. Berry, which, upon inquiry,
find is in payment of contract for
the settlement of damages claimed by
him for injuries received on the streets
Of Salt Lake. 1 have had no official
Information of this contract, except
said appropriation list, and until it
reached my hands and L made inquiry
had no knowledge that such contract
was made and the same was never in
any form submitted to me for an.
prevail.
in this connection 1 desire to call
your attention with emphasis to the
first section of the act of the legisla-
ture of 1892 giving to the mayor a
qualified veto, and which provides shat
every contract approved by the ,sc{y
council involving the expenditure of
money shall be submitted to the mayor
for his approval.
In the cases under consideration this
has not been done, clearly in violation
of this section.
With equal emphasis 1 also direct
your attention to the 10Th section of
the charter of Salt Lake found on
the 9th page OF the revised ordi-
nances, which provides that every
person elected or appointed to an cleo
tive, judicial or administrative Office
shall take and subscribe an oath or
affirmation that he will support the
constitution Of the United States, tbs
laws Of this territory and the ordi-
nances OF this city
The method pursued in the matter
in question is in direct violation of thls
obligation as we'll as of the act before
quoted.
l cannot. therefore, without a disro.
gard of duty, imposed on me by sec
ton of the act comforting the veto on
the mayor as we'll as Of my official
obligation, give my assent directly or
indirectly TO an appropriation in pay
ment in the transactions mentioned.
Respectfully,
Mr.. Young, speaking to the question. |
Shall the appropriation list pass not /
Wlthstanding the objections of the |
mayor therefor" said that if he thought
me mayor was right he would cheer |
Iully vote to sustain; but the circum- |
stances surrounding the act were such |
that action had to be taken at ones.
BY the purchase of the land in ParIev,s |
canyon the city's water rights had been |
protected. The council had endeay- |
ored to consult with the mayor when |
the contract was made, but he was not |
present. Had the purchase not been |
made at the time It could not now in.
made. The council, he thought, acted I
properly and there was no intention
TO slight the mayor at ALL or in part.
Clawson said the appropriation Of
money for Berry's damag es should be
segregated from the purchase of the
land. The constitution of The United
States" had nothing u 90 with the
former case at all. He could scarcely
vote lnteligently on the question as it
was now presented.
O'Meara thought the mayor should
be sustained even though he was in
this instance in error The fnayorss
idea seems that the council has acted
without his sanction. whereas II has
merely sent contracts 10 him for ap-
prevail. The speaker preferred 10 have.
the matter performed legally and Ger
rectly, even If another week was con-
sumed in perfecting details
Conn said the question was Simply
this: Who is right. the mayor or the
council? If the former, then the veto
should be sustained; if Tot, and the
council believes It IS right, it snoujd
not stultify itself by resembling It's
ACTS. me deedS vetoed by the MAYOR
we're legitimate and for the best in
-erests Of the city and should be sus-
aimed.
Mcmillan agreed with Coin and was
emphatic in his utterance that the
council should stand by its former
action.
The veto was overruled, all voting
I'VE.
City Auditors Report.
Auditor Raybould's report for the
month was read and referred to the
nance committee.
City Attorney.
city Attorney Hoge recommended
he granting of the various petitions {
or relief from tax sales, as given be-
DIV. which report was adopted. The !
edition of Martha Pugsley for the re- 1
7