The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-10-05
\ cIty Ownsrship 81 the Electric Light Plant to Be
sS Voted Upon.
~. pERmXN AUBERTIN TIE ONLY oBJEcToR.
IN New Contrast by the Light Company Criticised by
Alderman street-Woud Tie the City Up for Seven Years
II MISUNDERSTANDING Proposition Rejected.

X00 IeBVAWx togDs@hD ~ 49, ~~~s
was called to order with all members OF
the board Of aldermen present, Alderman
4 Latham having returned from an absence
from the city Of over three months dura-
ton.
As soon q the meeting was opened by
the mayor City Secretary Warner read an
invita&ion to the mayor and city council
from the German day committee asking
them to attend the German day celebra-
ton next Sunday. The invitation was for
naliy accepted with thanks.
A communication from Susan II. Flquet.
asking whether or not the water works
company has right to charge water rent
on vacant promises was referred TO the city
attorney.
Petition Of Mrs. NJ. George. requesting
that suit DO withdrawn against her for col
lection Of taxes for 1894. she having paii
them for that year on the wrong property.
was referred to the board of appraisement
with power to act.
A communication was read from the Flor
ence Crittenton Redcue home calling at,
tention to the filthy condition OF Elgln
street between Fannin and Caroline, stating
that 1t seemed to be general dumpius
ground for garbage and dead animals and
further that the attention OF the city health
officer had been called to 1t.
Alderman Adair moved that it be referred
to tho city health officer. This provoked
considerable discussion. Aldermen Heiser
and Matthews contending that 1t was Inn
proper TO refer such matters TO the health
officer. Alderman Matthews motion 10 re-
fer 1t TO the mayor and hospital committee
carried.
Petition OF Mrs u. A. Westcott citin5
error in assessment for 1896 on lot
block /, Chapmans first addition, was re-
ferred to the board of appraisement with
power TO act.
Petition OF James Wynnc for lowering OF
assessment was referred to the finance
committee. likewise the petition OF Dorgan
kaufman for correction OF assessment.
Petition OF Henrietta Law was referred
to the street and bridge committee.
AT this 1uncture the attention OF several
OF the members to what was going on hav-
Ing become somevnat lax, Mayor Rice
said. Il would likd to have the members OF
this council pay attention to the proceed,
ings OF these meetings. We arc here to
represent the interests OF the citizens of
Houston. and every member OF the council
should feel enough interest III the welfare
Of his constituents TO pay strict attention
10 every question that comes before US, "
The secretary then read the following
communication from the GilsonIte Roofing
and Paving company:
To the Honorable Mayor and Board of AL
dernen OF the City OF Houston,
Houston, Texas, October 4, 1Sy7.--We re-
spectfully submit the following proposition
We will on the second section Of work in
the Fifth ward lay an asphalt pnvcm mt on
4 io,ir-inch foundation. according TO sncci-
fications heretofore called for, at u total
cost OF $27,750.75. and guarantee tho same
for five years. This is S2i7i25 lower than
the recommended brick proposition. IL
would make continuous pavement and
give an opportunity OF testing the two diff
strent asphalts. Yours respectfully,
David lloag,
Agent Gilsonite Roofing and Paving Com
pany Per C. II. Freemar..
lbis communication was ruled out of
order by the mayor on the ground that bids
Tor this work have been made and accented
Reports OF the city engineer and city
marshal were referred to the proper COM
mittece.
A report was then read from tho light
committee on the proposition of the Cit,
xens' Electric Light and Power company.
recommending that the proposition OF tho
company be accepted and that the ineyos
DO authorized to make new contrac,
with the light company under the terms
proposed, and calling attention to tho re-
duction In price and to the further fac,
that the price OF lights to private con-
sumers are to be reduced, etc.
Alderman Street said that before any
action was taken In the matter he would
like to hear from the city attorney.
Thereupon a report from the city attor.
ney was read. saying that there was little
difference between new contract and tho
one now in force. He said that tho pres.
emit contract is not binding upon the city
because tho city does not bind itself Il
take any certain number of lights md
that the mere using of ono light by the
city would fulfill tho terms OF the con.
tract now In force, The new eontrae,
would eliminate that feature, and II would
be necessary to use all lights contracted
lor. II at any time the city should de.
eide TO build a plant Of Its own IL could
do so, but that the terms Of the new con.
tract wonld have to be lived up to unit
Its expiration.
Alderman Street then said 81 under.
STAND Inc city attorney to say that this nes
contract Will be more binding than tho on,
now In force. understand him 10 ga,
that II we make thk contract NOW tha ~