The daily morning journal and courier., 1897-09-08
ACTED ON MAYORS VETOES
ALDERHEN APPROVE OF ONE, BUT
 DISIPPROYE OF THE OTHER.

Not Sustained-Veto of Transfer from
 Sinking Fund Money Unanimously Sus-
 tained-Report of the Committee on Re-
 vision of Ordinances-Other Business.
 The board of aldermen at last nights
 meeting voted unanimously to sustain
 the mayors veto of the resolution pro-
 viding for the transfer from the $29,O00, | recently transferred from the sinking 1 fund to the city treasury, of the money
 for street cleaning and other purposes | amounting In all to $26,652, which the board of finance recommended be taken
 from the money appropriated last fail
 to pay for the street hardening then or | dered.
 The board, however by a vote of 12-10
 voted not to sustain the veto of the reso- lution ordering that certain streets be
 hardened and that any deficiency in the | amount appropriated last fall to pay for such hardening be made up from
 any funds in the hands of the city treasurer.
 In addition to thus voting not to sus-
 tain the veto of this last named resofu
 tion, the aldermen also voted to post
 pone indefinitely further consideration
 of the matter. The idea in taking this latter vote was to so postpone the mat
 ter as to leave it undecided in order
 that at some future meeting of the
 board a sufficient vote might be ob-
 tained to pass the resolution over the
 mayors veto. As the matter stands
 now, however, the veto stands and the
 action of the aldermen simply shows
 that they do not sustain the veto the vote of 12-10 not being sufficient to pass
 over the veto.
 The vote taken on the second veto
 mentioned above was on a motion by Alderman Pickett to reconsider the
 boards former action in passing the resolution this being in fact a motion
 to sustain the veto.
 The vote was aye and nay and re- suited as follows:
 Nays-Clark, Brennan Corcoran, Bromley, Rourke, Ryan, Forsyth, Chil- lingworth, Stuart, Petrie Toole and Compton-12
 Ayes-Nicoll, Darlington, Guernsey, Whitaker, Lambert, Coolohan, Pearce, Root, Unger and Pickett-10
 The first communication from the mayor read was that explaining his reasons for vetoing the resolution for the transfer from the $29,000 taken from the sinking fund. As soon as this communication was read, Alderman Pickett moved to concur with the coun- cilmen in sustaining the veto Alder man Root seconded the motion, The question was put without discussion and the motion was unanimously car ried
 After the reading of the second com munication Alderman Chillingworth moved to adhere to the boards pre- vious action in passing the order, the veto notwithstanding Alderman For syth seconded this motion. Alderman Pickett amended to reconsider the for mer action in passing the order, Alder men Guernsey and Root seconding.
 Alderman Chillingworth then took the | door He said that by the action of | the common council in voting to trans | fer the $29,o0O from the sinking fund and of the mayor in allowing this | without either vetoing or sign ing 1t within the required time, this | S29,000 was placed in the city treasury. | He then explained why this transfer to | the city treasury was wise action He then said: q deny that we seek to take money to make up any defi- ciency in the amount appropriated for street hardening from the sinking fund. This S29,000 is not in the sinking fund; 1t is in the city treasury.
 The burden of the veto message is that we have exceeded our power in voting to pave streets without provid- ng for the assessment of one-third of such paving on the property owners benefited thereby. When I voted last all for street hardening, l meant to vote to put the streets in good condi- ion, but according to the specified tions if an engineer, calling for eight-inch the money appropriated last all is insufficient to do the work or tered.
 Section 1855 of the charter gives the common council sole and exclusive au- hority over all streets and highwys within the city of New Haven and the common council in ordering this har- ening did not exceed its power. The harter says that the common council nay, not shall, not before the order is Xecuted, but afterwards, assess on per- ons whose property is benefited by aving, a portion of the cost Even hough the work were executed, we ould not so assess until after the mat CT had been referred to the board of It is the duty of the di- ] ector of public works to refer such | matters to the board Of compensation 1 nd refer back to the common council l he finding of that board. Then we , lay assess and not before. So we have f ot exceeded our authority in ordering treet hardening and not providing for ssessment.
 "If we do not pass this resolution yer the mayors veto it means that / nere are to be no improvements or re- , airs of streets; it means indefinite it means that We have tultified ourselves" Alderman Pickett next spoke. He aid that MT Chillingworth in his re- T larks had covered up the whole oues- on before us, head and ears. The uestion is, Shall the city of New Ha- S an exceed it's fixed income for ordinary Spenses? l believe that if we do not lstain the mayors veto we will err. ! nd err greatly :, Alderman Root said: 'It is not GUS ' mary for this board to turn down the = nf oOroroif+aaS oP V