The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-10-27
MAYOR CLARK'S SECOND VETO
THE EXECUTIVES OBJECTIONS
TO PAVING CONTRACT.
City Council Will Probably Sustain
the Misrepresentation As to Fate
of Other Contracts to Come.

In sharp contrast with the character
! istics of his predecessors, Mayor Clark
has not established a record for max
ing more than an average of vetoes. The
executives first veto message material
lied the middle of last March, when
he successfully objected to the passage
of the ordinance, by the city council
reducing the salary of the untitled Of
flee of police chief to So a month. Mayor
Clark's second veto is now in process
of preparation. 1t is billed for presen-
tation at next Tuesday evenings coun-
ell meeting, and considering that the
legislative and the executive branches
of the municipal government are not
now out of harmony, it is quite prob
able that his honor will again triumph.
The matter TO which the mayor finds
objection is the contract with William
II. Clark for constructing return curDS
and stone block paving leading to pri-
vate alleys in the business district.
Some time ago the board of public
works took W the subject of abolish
ing the wooden aprons which interfere
with street sweeping and clog up the
cutters at the points indicated. 1t was
deemed by the board that the abolition
of the nuisances in the manner pro-
posed would be appreciated by the gen.
eral public. The city council concurred
in the thought and Authorized the board
to solicit bids for the work. At first it
was believed by the board that the cost
of the Improvement would be legiti-
mate charge against the abutting prop
erty, but investigation demonstrated
that the expense would have to be
borne by the general treasury fund.
In pursuance of authority granted by
the city council, the board of public
works solicited bids for the return curb
ing and paving work. The contract
was awarded to William H. Clark, who,
by the way, is no relation whatever
to the mayor, and the boards action
was reported to the city council Tor
ratification. Tuesday evening the coun-
ell approved the contract. which was in
a sum approXimating $1,000. The ap-
prevail was recorded without the an
nOuncement of single negative vote.
WHY THE MAYOR OBJECTS.
When the councils action was Off
cially reported to the mayor yesterday
and the draft of the contract handed
to him for execution for the city, his
honor hesitated. His hesitancy soon
developed into a determination to in
terpose an executive objection to the
councils and the boards action.
While feeling to commend the desire
of the other of the coordinate branches
of the city government to lnauSurate
necessary and worthy improvements of
a public nature, Mayor Clark takes the
ground that the municipalities financial
cOpdition will not permit of the expen-
diture proposed, particularly since the
current years tax levy, when made, did
not contemplate any such outlay. An
other strong point that will appear in
the mayors veto message will be CT
tation of the fact that the improvement
contemplated in the contract could,
without serious inconvenience or loss,
go over until next years tax levy is
made, thus permitting of more urgent
work and emergency affairs to be cared
for by the already depleted treasury,
and lessening the amount of the newt
able deficit next summer.
There is little or no question that the
council will sustain the veto of the
Clark contract, but should a veto be
launched next week to the letting of a
contract for roughening the slippery
sidewalk pavements and repairing dam
aged paving, it is possible the objection
would not triumph. However. there is
small possibility of a veto on these lat
ter propositions, because of the greater
necessity of having such work done to
minimize the number of costly damage
suits resulting from the defects in
so long suffered to exist.