The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-01-06

ing in the meantime the committee 10 see
the officials Of the company and endeavor to
have the matter fixed up so that there will
be no discrimination against this borough
The Construction committee was instructed
to have the time in the contract for the COM
pletion Of the borough building painting
fixed at May 1st 1899. IL was also decided
that the railing on the bell tower be either
repaired or removed, rs it is in dangerous
condition
A discussion arose as to the terms upon
which James J. Coakley and john stanton
were employed 10 make a reassessment for
the public water works. Mr.. Bell said the
pay would be governed by that paid preyi-
ously, which was 81 per day, and he moved
that rate be paid.
Mr. Straughn thought the assistant super
intendent Of the works ought 10 be one Of
the assessors, as he could at the same time
acquant himself with all the connections
and note all defects OF eakages; that the
time was inOportune, as IL should be made
on the eve Of the time for the new duplicate
Mr.. Neiswnter was Of the same opinion.
Chairman Mcclure strongly opposed the
movement at the rate Of wages fixed. and
said the committee should have made the
assessment at the proper time-six months
did also Messrs Bell and Coakley
A motion by Mr.. James that the limit for
the work be fixed at fifteen days at 81 80 per
day for each man, and that the assistant
water superintendent be one of the assessors
was defeated. but Immediately efter Mr..
! Harkins moved that the assessing 20 ahead
provided the work would not consume more
than fifteen days at s. per day, OF a total ex.
peuditure of $50. This was readily agreed to
by those who favored the previous motion
and it prevailed.
Charles Dietz, Of North Main street. sent
in communication complaining that show
case exhibited by his next door neighbor.
Frank Schmidt, obstructed his view and the
view of the public thereby damaging his
business. He threatened that if Council
failed to act in the matter, he would enter an
action against the borough for damages to
the amount Of $50 per day.
Mr. StTaughn could not understand why
people persisted in bringing such complaints
before Council when the Chief Burgess has
full power under the ordinance, and even
greater power than Council can give him.
The communication was referred 10 the Chief
Burgess
Borough Treasurer T. J. Mullahey sub
mitted the following report
Balance at last report, 81 1s9 O5 Receipts
NJ. Nj. Burke, Esq, $50; S c. Spaldiug, NJ
d., $40; j. A. Toomey, $50 Water Superiu-
tendent, 81, 1876; Tax Collector Burke. sl1,-
600; J. w. Curtin, $3.50 temporary loan,
81 500 total, SIS, ,552.55. Disbursements
Orders paid, 81 606 .O6 coupons paid, So ,9s2 :;
bonds redeemed, 81, 100 discount on tempor-
ary loan, 500 so balance in treasury to date,
sl2 913 CO.
Chief Fire Marshal 2. J, Reynolds reported
that there was but one fire during the month
of December.
! hief OF Police Murphy presented his re-
port for December, showing l3 arrests. OF
these six paid fines and seven served time
Lodgings were furnished IL persons. Chief
Burgess Tabor collected So of the fines and
Justice Shoemaker 50. report was also
submitted, showing the times at which GER
tain street lights did not burn during the
month. The latter part of the report was
referred to the Lamp and Watch committee
The Chief Burgess reported that during
December he collected s. in fine and S32. so in
theatre Licenses, total of S345O.
There was discrepancy of four dollars
between the twq last reports and the report
OF the Burgess was referred back to him for
correction, A motion was also made that
orders granted for the salary of the Chief
Burgess be held until the official balances his
accounts with the borough.
James Cook presented bill of $40 for
writing the duplicate. and the bill was
objected to as excessive. 1t was finally
agreed to allow him $40 for the work.
Justice TOomey sent in bill of S60 IS for
costs in :he Fifth ward sewerage suits.
Objections were raised l1) that the costs
should have been collected from the defend.
ants (2) that the understanding was the
suits were to be dropped upon abatement OF
the Duisances and payment of costs. but as
neither condition was complied with, the
fines should have been collected. The matter
was referred to the Borough Solicitor.