The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-02-01
Tbo Ordinance Discussed,

men VINO WOulu NC AeA4A We -,
company. but 1t is not known who VIII
succeed them.
Tho Ordinance Discussed.
CITY solicitor Nesbitt said the Ordi-
nance would not have the effect Mr..
Howard suggested; the board of public
works merely controls the erection or
installation of the system. has not the
mower to prohibit and must use its
mower reasonably. Even II board Of
public works mlsused its power the
company could go into court and COM
mel it to do its duty reasonably. The
ordinance introduced by the company.
added the solicitor. makes no provision
for supervision by the board Of pub
lie works.
On suggestion by Mr.. Howard, agreed
TO by the solicitor and committee, an
amendment was inserted in section four
TO the eject that the board Of public
works shall not have the power to ex-
clude the company from any section OF
the city.
Mr. Howard next took up the limited
I,fe Of the ordinance as re-drawn by
the city solicitor, which is thirty
wears. while the ordinance prepared
bv the company was perpetual, like the
Bells. This Limitation, It was claimed
would not benefit the city or people.
Except in this particular; we would
have you by the throat to reduce the
rates at the end of thirty years" said
the solicitor.
And make US take down our poles
and perpetuate the Bell monopoly" re-
sponded Mr.. Howard.
Mr.. Williams moved that the term OF
thirty years be stricken out and that
the same term as the Bell ordinance
perpetuity, be inserted. The motion
was seconded by Mr.. Ross T. Chew and
passed unanimously.
Mr.. Howard objected, further, to the
section recurring that sum Of money
he deposited with the board Of public
works. to cover any repairing Of
streets by the board caused by the in
PRODUCTION of the new telephone sys-
tenn. He contended that the company'a
bond of $4,000, deposited with the city,
would cover such contingency.
Mr.. Nesbltt said the sum would
never be large, and would amply insure
the streets being put in as good con
ditlon as they were before.
Mr.. r. T. Chew moved that the OBJ
iectlonable section be stricken out. Al
this juncture, Mr.. Williams suggested
that the company's ordinance, which
had been before council and was refer
red be taken UP, instead of the sollcl-
tors ordinance. 1t was pointed out
that the ordinance would come before
the committee anyway.
Question Of Street Work.
Chairman Mccormick said II the Bell
ordinance had no provision for the pro-
per care being taken OF the streets, II
was no reason why this ordinance
should not have such a provision,
There had been instances of trouble on
this score recently.
"If this is u competitive company, II
should be placed on the same footing at
the other" said Mr.. II. t. Chew.
Mr.. williams seconded the Chew mo-
ton, to strike out the provision for put
ting up cash in the hands Of the board
ALSO that the company do It's own
street work?" inquired Mr.. Nesbitt.
Mr.. chew-Yes; they should be on
the same footing; it's a business prop
osItlon.
Mr.. Observation-Disclosures, you're
making n mistake.
Mr.. Howard contended that the pro.
vision would DO unreasonable, and
mu be 30 admitted. Mr.. Nesbltt came
back with an apt illustration which hr
Howard claimed did not 81 the case.
The Chew motion was then put Il