The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-07-13
Is HE GOING TO VETO IT!
MAYOR KIEFER. HOLDING THE
TELEPHONE RESOLUTION
Says 1t Is Such an Important Matter
That He Has to Take Time to
Consider It-SOme Possibility
That an Opinion of Mr.. Mark
Question.

The resolution passed by the council Civ
ing the Mississippi Valley Telephone company
the right to lay conduits and erect poles and
| string wires certain streets has not as YET
been signed by Mayor Kiefer. All the other
4 resolutions, ordinances and other matters
have been returned to the, city clerk from
the mayors office with the signature Of his
honor attached
Questioned last evening as to whether he
intended to approve or veto the telephone
resolution, the mayor stated that it was a
very important matter, and he had been SC
time to consider it. AS to what action he
would take he was not prepared to say, as he
had not even read the resolution.
There was some talk yesterday that the
resolution would be vetoed on the ground
that the new telephone company had already,
under the terms of the ordinance granted,
by the council and approved by Mayor Doran
March % last gave the company a twenty
five year franchise for local telephone ex-
! change.
Sections II and 10 of the ordinance read as
| follows:
Section 11-said Mississippi Valley Tele-
| phone company shall file its written accept
ance of the provisions of this ordinance with
the city clerk on or before the expiration
of sixty days from the passage of this ordi-
| nance and shall at the same time file with
the city clerk bond with sufficient sureties
| to be approved by the common council Of
said city, in the sum of $4,000, conditioned
of construction of said telephone and con-
duit system on or before fifteen days from
the date of filing of suchf acceptance, and
that 1t will thereafter prosecute its work of
| construction with all reasonable diligence;
| that it will within the period Of six months
from the date of the filing of said bond, e1-
| pend in the actual AMI necessary consIr NC
!. on Of said system not less 'han s'O''00'
Section 13-Failure on the part of said
| company to file its acceptance with the city
olf
within the time limited herein, or to comply
with any of the conditions of said bonds or
any time to any OF dag PRO pro-
| ordinance null ana void.
| 1t was and is claimed by several Of the
councilmen that as the company did no work
| on the construction of lines laying OF
| conduits within the time specified, which as
| the company accepted the ordinance May ~;
| would expire June Z, that under section IL
| quoted above, the franchise was forfetsd
| This point was re erred to Corporation At
torney Markham, who in lengthy opinion
| sa;d
that failure to perform any of the condi-
| tions of the lard would render it null and
! void this does not mean that there IS for
fixture without any act CT ceremony what
merely gives the city the right to declare a
! forfeiture either by passage OF an ordinance
SO declaring or by commencement OF an
action and securing a~decree of court to
| that effect. So If it Is found ttat the tele-
| phone company has failed to comply with the
condition in question ifnthe council desires
| to complete the forfeiture it will be neces-
sary to take further acton of the ne
/ ture indicated above. "A final adoption and
| approval of the plan of general construction
submitted by the company by beth bodies Of
| the council would result in a waiver by tie
| city of the past failure to- comply with the
! ordinance as. to commencement Of work of
| construction, assuming that there had been
| such a failure.
| The council passed the plans submitted by
| the company and 1t was rurored last eveEing
| that an effort was beirg made to have the
| mayor veto, the resolution, it being pointed
| out that should the same be approved by
| him the city would wait any rights it had
| to forfeit the franchise under the clause re-
| curing the construction to be commenced
wit. in the time mentioned in section Of the
| ordinance.