The herald., 1896-12-03
Ghost of the Past Faces the
Water Company
1lL.IALE Change IN THE RECORDS
Why We're the Minutes of the
Clerk Altered !?
THAT JULY SESSION OF 1868
Tie Vote Altered to Two.thirds Vote
on the Lease
THAT JULY SESSION OF 1868
II Looks as Though Some Official Needed
Shielding
A Brief History Of the Manner in Which
the Water Monopoly Was Gre
ated-Andrew Boyle's OPP
position.

There is a mystery in the ancient
archives at the city hall, in the city
clerks vault, which the taxpayers OF the
city are interested in having solved. 1t
is contained in yo11me 6 of the records
of the council proceedingst and tells its
own story of the flimsiness of the foun-
dation upon which the water company
is building it's hopes of being able to
force this city to purchase it's plant for
SO 900. 0O0 1t Is the story of the session of
July co. 1868.
There is an alteration in the minutes
penned in that book of council proceed
ings by the clerk of that time, and, as
though 1t would point the finger of ac-
cucation at some one, the Past stalks
forth and confronts the City Water COM
pany with the Interrogation: why were
those minutes changed?"
The ink on the musty pages of this
ancient tome has become Drowned with
the twenty eight years of time that have
elapsed: that is, the ink in which the
original record of the proceedings at
this particular session was inscribed,
but the ink of the alteration is still
bright black and stands out in striking
contrast to the rest of the chirography.
Who altered the record? Why is the
alteration in different ink and hand
writing? Did John King, at that time
president of the council. whose sigma,
ture is subscribed to the minutes, ana
in whose handwriting the change seems
to have been made take it upon himself
to edit the minutes of the clerk! III SO,
why did Mr. King do so, unless 1t was
10 shield himself in a matter that
seemed to require fixing up for some
rody's benefit? And inasmuch as the
clerk had recorded the fact that the
vote in the council stood a tie on the
acceptance of the water contract with
J. S. Griffin and others. and that the
president gave the casting in favor OF
the affirmative, why did Mr.. king
If it was Mr.. King that did it-change
tha record so as to make 1t read that tine
vote was four in favor and two against.
Mr.. A. A. Boyle, the grandfather OF
Bowie Workman, the candidate on the
Democrat -Populist Silver Republican
ticket for city treasurer, was member
of the city council at that time and
fought hard against the acceptance OF
TIE Griffin proposition.
Two propositions were before the
council One was to lease the water
work. for a term of thirty-years at an
a~rual rental of S15OO This was the
C~;ntn proposition. The other was
from Juan f6FHdTuO anu otiiCiS, oiAS'
ing to lease the water works for term
o. oily twenty years and at rental
o. $1,000 annually The Griffin PROPOSE
ton bound the city for ten years longer
u 4 promised $500 less rental per annum,
ca also saddled onto the city the obii-
CATION to purchase its plant at the explr-
alton of the lease. Why was this one ac-
capted and the other rejected?
See what the records-drafted in the
quaint composition of the municipal
chancellor of the archives, who, twenty
eight years ago. called the roll and KEEP.
tab on the council-themselves have to
say. See what they once said ana What
they row have to tell:
SESSION OF JULY 10, 1868.
AT this time the city attorney pre-
scented the draft of an ordinance and con-
tract wherein ]. s. Griffin and others
propose to lease the City water works
for term Of thirty years. paying there
for an annual rent of $1,000, and at the
expiration Of said term the city to pur-
chase certain improvements at their
valua tion. After discussion the same was
referred to g special committee of
Messrs Boyle. Botiller and Roeder."
SESSION OF JULY 20, 1868.
"At this time a petition from Juan
Bernardo and others was read where
in they proposed to lease the City water
works for the term of twenty years.
paving therefor an annual rental of
$4,000. together with the same specifica-
tions contained in similar petition
from J. 8. Griffin and others. After
some discussion the president of the
council ordered the report Of the COM
mittee upon the petition of j. s. Griffin
and others to be heard which was done.
Whereupon A. A. Boyle, from the same
committee offered minority report,
which was also read. The question then
arose. what shall be done with the petit
ton of Bernardo and others? When
j. G. Howard. Esq, appeared in person
as a taxpayer and citizen, and also rep
resenting, as he said. large number
of respectable citizens When the chair
informed Mr.. Howard that 1T could not
hear a speech at this time, Mr.. Howard
replied that he did not wish to make
speech. but only to. make few sugges-
tons in support OF the petition of Juan
Bernardo and others. The chair de-
clined hearing further discussion from
outsiders.
Mr.. A. A. Boyle proposed that J. G.
Howard be heard. Overruled. Then
c. E. Thorn, Esq, on his own behalf as
a citizen. asked permission to be heard.
which was overruled by the chair. Mr.
c. e. Thorn desired a solemn protest to
be entered against the ruling of the
chair.
"Whereupon the question arose, Shall
the consideration and final action of the
council on the petition of J. s. Griffin
and others be postponed until another
meeting? The ayes and noes were called
for; in the Affirmative, Messrs. Boyle,
Dalton and Botilier, and in the negative
Messrs ,Shoemacher, Roeder and Mas
carel. Being a tie vote the president cast
the deciding vote in the negative.
THE question then came up upon the
acceptance of the proposition of J. S.
Griffin and others. The vote was three
in favor and three against, when the
president gave the casting in favor of
osltion Of J. g. Griffin and others, which
was In the nature of a contract and or
6inance. The same was signed by the
president, and referred to his honor the
may4r, for his approval.
'sWhereuuon the session was adjourn
ed,until Monday. the 27th of July, 1868.
"signed, >S6An King, President"