The daily morning journal and courier., 1897-06-18

OAA
 The board of aldermen last evening spent two hours and thirty minutes in- terpreting the new charter incident to passing upon the amendment to the street sprinkling ordinance and the awarding of the Mill River bridge con- tract. The former had been before the board of aldermen at previous meet ing and had received it's sanction, but at the last meeting of the councilmen the ordinance was amended, inserting March 15 for December 15, and making clerical corrections.
 Alderman Dewell thought the report of the committee should be tabled un- til the council could find out whether the street sprinkling assessments were to be advertised under the new charter. It would only be the matter of a few days and he was quite sure the peo- pie could stand dust" a few days, rather than part with so much dust" to pay for street sprinkling advertise ments.
 Alderman Pickett thought the new charter under which he understood the city was working provided that there should be no advertising of street sprinkling advertisements; that the notice of assessments should be sent out by postal cards. He suggested, though, that the matter be tabled until the opinion of the corporation counsel could be obtained as to the right of the board of public works under the new charter to make contracts for street sprinkling.
 Alderman Dewell did not think it nec- essary to refer a matter which came under the jurisdiction of department which would be out of existence be- fore the opinion could be obtained.
 Alderman Brennan: MT Mayor, I would like to know where I am at If I understand what the gentlemen have said, we are not acting under the old charter, and it is my opinion that few of US here are sufficiently acquainted with the new one as to act intelligent ly under it. I think we should adjourn for two weeks and give the members of this board an opportunity to study the charter"
 
 there was any conflict of meaning be- tween the old and the new charter so far as this matter of street sprinkIing assessment was concerned The real question was that of awarding the bridge contract and not the street sprlnkling. Every man who advocated delay on the question knew that if the board of public works had no rights in the street sprinkling matter it had none in the Mill River bridge question.
 Alderman Dewell moved to adjourn for one week.
 Alderman Brennan seconded the mo- ton It was lost by a vote of 13 to 10.
 MT. Dewell then moved to lay the matter on the table until the July meet ing.
 MT. Chillingworth moved to amend. This was objected to by Alderman Dewell as being out of order. Alderman Chillingworth moved to suspend the rules. The motion pre- vailed and Alderman Chillingwcrth dis cussed the question.
 Alderman Dewell moved to indefinite ly postpone which was ruled out by the mayor.
 Alderman Pickett called for his mo- tion tabling the report until the opinion of the corporation counsel could be ob- tained
 Alderman Rourke offered as a sub stitution motion that the report of the committee be accepted and the order passed. The motion prevailed. Alderman Ryan moved to proceed to consider the Mill river bridge contract. Alderman Root-'I move that we re- consider our former action and concur with the board of councilmen."
 The motion was seconded and Alder man Dewell amended by a motion to adhere. He said in support of his amendment that he always favored awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, but he did not think that a city or an individual should by advertising for bids for contract forfeit all rights to reject bids or to judge upon prices whether they were exorbitant or not. If this bridge can be built for so much less cost, as has been shown in this chamber We should do so and should say so by our vote," he said. Alderman Root said he had never | heard anything about the validity of the award or the right of the court of common council to pass such an order until then. He would like to know why this had not come out before. There had been nothing said in the commit tee room or at the previous meeting about the validity of the contract if awarded by the court of common coun- sel. He had made the motion to recon sider in good faith.
 Alderman Pickett-"I know that the alderman from the Sixth offered his 1 motion to reconsider in good faith. l would say In reply to the remarks con- corning the question of invalidity that it never occurred to a member of the committee during the hearings. l, for one, did not think of it until the other day. when I saw that the city auditor had discovered that we were living un- ] der the new charter as to certain mat ters in his department, that I reviewed the new charter and found that the court of common council could not award the contract, which was plainly, by the terms of the new charter, placed under the control of the director of the department of public works" | Alderman Petrie was perfectly willing l to award the contract.
 Alderman Rourke-''I, for one. am | willing to on record as being in favor | of awarding this contract. Your honor may veto the order if you find it il- | legal
 1 Alderman Chillingworth read from 1