The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-06-24

The last hope but one of the Lacka-
wanna Telephone franchise was shat
tered last night by select councils re-
fusal to concur in the amendments of
the lower branch. A conference COM
mittee was appointed to adjudcate the
deadlock between the two Legislative
branches. On the conclusions of the
joint conference committee the fate of
the franchise rests, in a measure.
When the telephone franchise ordin-
ance as amended in common council
was read in the select branch, Messrs
Lansing and Finn moved for concur
renee. The only speech, pro or con,
was made by Mr.. Roche. He spoke in
opposition to the leniency of the amend
ments and made a good address from
his standpoint, although, as he said
his remarks would have been more
elaborate if he had been feeling well.
His statements We're almost wholly
confined to refuting the arguments used
to the effect that councils were not
consistent in giving the Central Penn
sylvania company privileges that would
not he accorded the Lackawanna COM
pany. Councils had not, he remarked.
the power to make terms with the Gem
tral company as it had acquired long
established privileges. Councils did
have the power, however, to dictate to
the new company and the absence Of
power in the past should not argue
against plain duty now.
NOT BURDENSOME.
Mr.. Roche denied that the placing of
the wires underground would be bur-
densome. Its exchange and transmits
sion system would cost about $4,000.
From phone rentals the annual revenue
would be $4,000 from subscribers al
ready secured. Its operating expenses
would be about $4,000, leaving, there
fore net annual revenue of $4,000
against an Investment of $4,000
The motion to concur was then lost
by the following vote of to 10:
A"es-Messrs Ross. Finn, Thomas,
Wagner, Robinson, SaEdcrson, Schroeder,
Lansing, o Boyle.
Nays-Mcssrs. Kearrcy. James, Roche.
Melvin, Shea Mccain, Fellows, Frable,
Coyne. McAr drew.
Not voting-Presdent Chittendcn.
President Chittenden's vote could
not have changed the result. He ap-
pointed a COnfeJeRCe committee con-
sisting of Messre. Mccain, Melvin and
Fellows.
The controversy between the sewer
ties and the anti-scwCrites along a
portion of the proposed Providence
road and North Main avenue pave
ment was decided with pronounced
expedition in favor of the element
which wants the pavement laid at once
and is willing to let the sewer await
the result of time.
Mr.. Roche presented the following
petition signed by about forty prop
erty owners who want the pavement
work deferred until a sewer is laid:
We, the subscribers, owners of property
ahutting on North Main avenue, be-
tween Putnam street and Bulls Head
corners aud Providence road between
Bulls head corner and Court street, re-
speCtfully represent:
That an ordinance has been passed re-
curing the paving of said portion of said
street and road; that said portion of said
street and road has not been severed /;
that the sewer ought to be laid before
paving, and that the sewer is much
more necessary than pavement at the said
place and that it would be a great dam
age to the property owners to have said
ing.
That we respectfully petition you that
YOU will repeal said ordinance or do
whatever is necessary to prevent the
paving of said street and road in said
localities until they are first severed
And We will ever pray, etc.
COUNTER PETITION.
A counter petition was offered by
Mr.. Finn, supported by all the NORTH
End councilmen. 1t related that the
sewerites' petition was in reality a
subtcrfuge and was suggested by the
opposition of the signers to pave
ment The Finn petition asked Coun-
ellis to proceed with necessary legsla-
tion to cause the immediate paving
| of said avenue and road
A motion was made by Mr.. Roche
that both petitions be referred to the
sewers and drains and pavements
committees jointly, with instructions
to give a hearing to both sides OF the
controversy. Mr. Finn moved that
both petitions be received and filed.
President Chittenden ruled that the
Roche motion had precedence. \ vote
was taken upon it and it was lost by
a vote of to II as follows:
Ayes-Mcssrs. James, Roche. Sand,t-
SON Mccain, Fellows, O'Boyle, Mean
| drew, Chittenden.
Nays-Mcssrs Ross. Finn, Kearney,
Thomas, Melvin, Wagner Robinson,
Shea, Schroeder, Lansing, Frable Coyre.
Mr. Finn's motion to receive and file
the petitions was then adopted by a
viva Voce vote.
The expenditure of a great many
thousands of dollars is involved in the
following resolution offered by Mr..
Lansing, which provides for pave
ments on nearly all the unpaved courts
and places in the central city:
That the following named courts and
places be paved and the cost
assessed against abutting prop
critics according to the foot front rule:
Forest court, from its beginning 70
Olive street.
Breck court, from the First Presbytc-
rian church property to Olive street. also
the courts or places which connect Brcck
and Forest courts.
Oakford court, from Mulberry to Vine
street
Dix court, from end of present pave
ment near Mulberry street. now being
laid, 20 Vine street, also from Pine to
New street.
Lee court from Center to Spruce street,
and from j. ID, Williams property south
Of Mulberry street. 10 Vine street, and
from the north side Of the high school
property to Gibson street.
kressler court, from Center to Mulberry
street, and from Coyne place to Olive
street, and from Pine street to Gibson
street
Coyne place, from Adams avenue to
kresslcr court
Moir court, from Linden street 10 Olive
street and from Pine street TO Myrtle