The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1899-11-15
MAYOR 5 VETO
Resolution No. | Gets a Blow
in the N6Ck from His
Honor.
The Mayor Allows the Repeal
OF Ordinance 81 to
Go by Default.

Mayor Smith has vetoed the reso-
luton adopted at the last meeting of
the city council requiring the mu-
nicipal court to demand security for
costs in all cases brought to prose-
cute for alleged violations of city
ordinances. His veto message is a
long one. After placing his official
disapproval on the resolution he
silently placed his approval on ordi-
nance No. %, repeating ordinance
No. p, seeking to compel liquor
dealers to expose their bars to pub
lie view on Sundays, by allowing
the ordinance to become a portion
of the citv's law without placing his
signature thereto, and, as provided
by the charter, the repeating ordi-
nance becomes effective five days
after the council adopts it, whether
the mayor signs it or not, providing
he does not veto it.
The resolution which the mayor
has vetoed, has preamble to the
effect that several prosecutions have
been instituted for alleged violations
of ordinance No. p, and said prose-
cutions being in the opinion of the
council vexatious and groundless,
and the result thereof being likely
to involve the city into needless and
great expense. It then demands
that the police court be requested
and directed to require of all par
ties seeking to institute or carry on
prosecutions for such alleged viola
tions security for all costs, both in
pending and future prosecutions,
and to dismiss all prosecutions
where said security is not furnished.
After stating that the resolutions
does not meet with the approval of
the mayor and that the common
council is a legislative, not a judi
cial body. the veto message states
that it is the duty of the council to
see, among other things, that ordi
nances and resolutions for the peace,
quiet, welfare aud progressiveness
of the city be duly passed and en-
forced, and to certain extent may
be compared to the Legislative duties
of our State legislature.
The Mayor states that while an
ordinance does not meet with ap-
proval of a majority of the members
of the council, it is their duty to see
that it is enforced, because it is a
law and as such should be respected
by every law abiding citizen, and
when not so respected should be
enforced against the violators, and
even the parties abetting the viola
tion should have the contempt OF
every loyal citizen of our city.
There are laws of our State he
continues. (which in our minds we
do not heartily endorse, yet we, as
citizens respect that law as we re-
spect our flag, and while it is in
force, desire to see that the same is
not violated, and we, as such citi.
zens, look with contempt upon a
person who knowingly violates or
abets the violation of such law.
1T appears to me that under the
statements made in said resolution,
and on the face of it that we have
not an ordinance of this city which
we can look upon as having the sup
port of the common council. If a
prosecution is instituted, and con.
sidered vexatious and groundless
under ordinance No. q, or any
other ordinance, it is the duty o1
the judicial tribunal to so determine
and not the duty of Legislative
body, and no Legislative body is
supposed to abet the violation ot
any law by considering it vexatious
or groundless, if it is duly passed
by such body. Such statements as
vemtious and groundless have /