The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-12-02

motion was lost by vote of to 2 the
Mayor having no vote. Dittus and Krieg
voted aye and Fay and Noting no. On
motion and vote the adoption of both re-
ports was defeated.
In the proceedings that followed, it was
made apparent that the persistent neglect
OF lis duty by the Council of late NAV
orlng about most undesirable condition
in the city. The city NAV be without
hghts Tor several weeks, and the streets
may be lett unswept. The con tracts for
street-sweeping and street-lig hting expire
on FRIDAY, and it will take at least TWO
weeks before they can be renewed under
be provisions of the charter.
When the street-sweeping matter came
up, Noting moved that the City Clerk be
instructed to advertise for bids Tor the
work for one year. The Mayor suggested
that the contract ought to be made for
three years, as IL would be possible to get
1t done at cheaper rate for the longer
period. Noting objected to the Mayors
idea, saying that next year there would be
an entirely new Council, and that the
ne" body should have something to say
in the matter.
The Mayor persisted and suggested that
the advertisement call for bids for one
year and for three years. Noting finally
moved that the matter lay over till next
Monday. The motion was lost by a tie
vote, Noting and Fay voting in the af-
frmative and their two colleagues in the
negative. IT. ~.
On NoIting's motion to advertise for
one-year bids a similar ballot 10 the last
was recorded. 5..-~..% s.: r.: -. -..-
This subject was dropped and the street
lighting matter was called up by the
Mayor. On the motion of Noting the
City Clerk was instructed to advertise for
bids for lighting the CITY as it is now
lJphtnd with ha or of q 70
lights. ..>...:..e 49,.
AT this point arose a problem that
caused much discussion, and which was
left virtually undecided when the Council
adjourned. Under the charter the Coun-
Gil. IS prohibited from mourning any In
debtednessin excess of 500 without first
advertising and letting a. contract for the
la Dor ors pplies on which an indie btedness
may be based. Even under the most
favorable circumstances Two weeks will
e4apse before new contracts can be made
Tor sweeping and lighting the city.
The question was: What is to. be done
in the. meantime2 After considerable
discussion motions were adopted proYid-
ing that.the Council would agree to pay
for lighting ana sweeping by the day.
The charge for the former is $50 day and
tor the lattor little in excess OF $50. =
Ii was. not until this action had been
taken tn at the opinion OF the City Attor-
ney, VII was present, was. asked for by
Councilman Fay as to the legality Of the
proceedings. City Attorney Welch. an
sweredthat.the facts had been presented
to him BY Howell Moore, the attorney
of the Electric Improvement Company
which now holds the contract for lighting
the CITY, and that he had said to Mr..
Moore that he. considered it case of ne
cesslty and that he thought 1t would be
legitlma tie for the Council 10 agree to pay
ilTy he jaV a "a #auzOnpf-. each az
" as less / han 500.
! AT this poinI Fay attempted to call the
City Attorney O. task for not volunteer
ing his advice whenever there was any
legal question nvolyed in the action OF
the Council. Welch responded hat he
did not propose: 10 be bobbing up contnu-
ally. and so making himself a nuisance
and "a worse hated man than Fay him
seif.'' #. = E. :. II.
Fay insisted that twas the duty OF the
Cify Attorney to preventive Council from
wreckfng Itself, by warning it of any
shoals it might be approaching.
u WEIGH called attention to the fact that
the Jufiau.street sewer contract had never
been submitted to him, when the charter
expires ly provides that all contracts shall
be ubmItted 10 the City Attorney. Fay
is a member of The sewer committee.
This was unsnswerable, and Fay humbly
apqlogiEed to Welch. The Council then
AuJ0uIHed. -. - - sz.-s.
In the course. ofthe discussions..w
Fay WEIGH admitted that there might be
some question as to the egality of the tenn
porSPy arrangements made for lighting:
and sweeping the streets, and that he could
not give a decited and full opinion off
hand. He would have to have time to do
SO. s. H., Il. ...<z-.S :@
: " lille. the proceedings were in progress
Cohncii man Noting showed THE CALL
re i@reaen tative. seven bilIs made out against
the city in tnenamenf Charles Wehner for
the.work =itf filling in. the. trench along the
M ain outlet sewer =. -. n I. - x: :=55@
!" They were all dated .Deeem bel. /, 1897,
and were TOR the fol lowing amounts, g
gregating $500: Etghty-t wo dollars 800,
S97, sas, S100 SIS, $50. He declared that
he intended TO present them for the APP
prevail of=the counc il tonight, but he eyi-
IDENTITY thought better of his plan. They
were not even filed. He explained bis
failure to present them By saying that the
Mayor had not submitted his veto. of The
second Wehner claim for this same
hfnoNnt alld far the snrna yg0rL.- :. =. -.