The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1896-07-14
ALDERMEN NOT SUSTAINED
THE STREET COMMITTEES MUST
MIKE 4 REPORT.

The Junior Branch of the Court of Com
mon Council Acts With Decision-Tem-
porary Victory for the Asphalt Company
| Guard Rails for Summer Cars-other
Municipal Business.
The board of councilmen failed to
concur last evening in the resolution
from the aldermanic body annulling
the contract with the Boston Asphalt
company for the paving of Orange,
Trumbull and West Chapel streets with
! Sicilian asphalt. The matter now
awaits the report of the committee on
streets, to whom 1t was referred for
| investigation. The supporters Of the
| street committee and its chairman, AL
derman Hamilton, made hard fight
for the passage of concurrent resolu-
tion, but the opposition was too strong.
Councilman Pickett led the Hamilton
forces, assisted by Councilmen White
and Ryan. While the other side was
| championed by Messrs. Hubbard, Com
pertz and Thomas under the leadership
of Councilman Beers, seconded by
Councilman Norris, member of the
street committee. There was an inti-
nation at the opening of the session
that there was to be a lively discussion
during the evening. By the time the
resolution was reached there were pres
ent a number of the members of the
board of aldermen, Commissioner l..
H. Johnson, Clerk Bassett of the board
of public works and City Engineer Kel-
ley.
Business moved briskly and several
concurrent bills were put through. 1t
was not until the reading of the ar
ticle annulling the contract was reach
ed that the fight began. Councimen
Hubbard and Beers each tried to get
recognition from the chair and the
councilman from the Ninth ward was
successful. He introduced the follow
ing resolution: =
Resolved, That the resolution (disap-
proving the action of the board of pub
lie works and declaring the contract for
paving portions of Orange street, West
Chapel and Trumbull streets invalid,
etc., be referred to the joint standing
committee on streets with instructions
|
opinion the resolution should be adopt
ed and the facts in detail upon which
this opinion is based.
Resolved further, That they be ask
ed to report to this body the results
OF the investigation referred to In the
request for special meeting of June 15
printed on page 149 of the journal
Provided further, That they be re-
quested to report to this body SO far
as practicable, what evidence, If any,
they have discovered of fraud, bribery
or lack of good faith on the part of
the Boston Asphalt company or of col
fusion between it and any persons act
Ing or assuming to act in behalf of the
city of New Haven in the matter now
under consideration.
/ Speaking of his resolution the coun-
Gilman said that it's purpose was to OBJ
tain from the committee on streets the
facts pertaining to the most important
matter that has come before the board
for many years A special meeting was
called on the fifteenth on June at the
instance OF the committee on streets
to instruct 1t to cite before it the mem
bers of the board of public works and
|
to the awarding of the contract to the
Boston Asphalt company.
The only thing that had been heard
from the committee was the paper
upon which concurrent action was ask
ed, and that came from the chairman
of the committee, offered in the board
of aldermen. 1t was not, and did not
pretend to be, a report of the commit
tee. The councilman did not wish to be
understood as prejudging the matter
He simply wanted to get at the facts.
Councilman Norris supported the
gentleman from the Ninth ward, say
Ing that the Importance of the subject
made 1t necessary that due deliberation
be taken.
Councilman Pickett took the floor in
defense Of the concurrent resolution.
He could not view the matter as did
the previous speaker. The corporation
counsel had, after mature deliberation,
and consultation with other lawyers,
delivered an opinion, which was in eff
feet that the board of public works had
no right to make a contract with the
Boston Asphalt company There was
no question about this, and there was
' nothing to do but to concur in the res
|
olution.
Councll1nen Hubbard and Ryan voic-
ed the sentiments of Mr. Beers. Mr.
Ryan thought 1t was about time to stop
the board of public works from such
high handed work as had been charged
Councilman Norris could not vote for
the resolution, as there had been moth
!, ing as yet reported to the court of COM
mUon council.
There was further debate on the
question. The drift of sentiment was
almost entirely with the non-concur-
rent members. The fate of the Beers
resolution did not seem to indicate this
as it was lost by vote of 16 to Is
When the original motion to concur
was called both Beers and Norris call
ed for unanimous consent. 1t was rul-
ed by the chair that 1t was not new
: business and that unanimous consent
was not necessary to its passage
Councilman Norris appealed from the
decision ot the chair, and the board
I sustained the appeal by a vote of II to
| IA. Councilman Picket moved to con-
slider the resolution in the committee
5 of the whole.
! The motion was lost by a vote of Il
to 13.
= Councilman Norris was recognized by
} the chair and moved that the concur
f rent resolution be tabled until the street
2 committee reports. The motion was
.