The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-03-30

Sixteen members of select council
put themselves on record last night as
opposing the mayors veto of the item
In the appropriation ordinance Of 1880
for clerk hire for the city controllers
department No action was taken on
the veto in the common branch, which
also met, as several of the Democratic
members broke the quorum before
vote could be taken.
The veto of this item and that OF
$1,000 for filling in the approaches to
the Bloom avenue culvert were con-
tained in the following communication
sent in by Mayor Moir:
To the Honorable, the Select and Com
mon Councils.
Gentlemen: herewith return file Of
select council, No. &c. approved with the
exception of lines II and s4ia. which l
veto for the following reasons:
Line 17--"Clerk hire for the city con-
troller. $780," under existing circum.
stances Is much too large an amount.
On examination find that there was
appropriated for clerk hire for this de-
partment in 1892, $500; in 1896, 1890; in
1898, $500. and In 1899. $500. These ap-
preparations for clerk hire were made
Ter should supervise and audit the ac-
counts of the Scranton school district in
connection with the city's finances. and
this has been done up to last year with
out demur.
Our present city controller raised the
question last summer-and I think justly
so-that the school board being a dis.
tinct body entire'y separate from the
city, their revenues and expenditures be-
ing directly under their own manage
ment should bear the expense Of the
supervision and auditing of their own
accounts. The school board saw the JUS
tice Of the claim and agreed to pay the
controller 500 per month for clerk hire
for services rendered to them.
MONEYS NOT REPORTED.
I am informed that the controller has
already received moneys under this ar
rangement. which he has never reported
to your honorable bodies, nor turned
over to the city treasurer. but has re-
tained for his own private use. / fail
to find any law whereby any city official
can raise the emoluments of his office or
receive or retain other than the amount
fixed by ordinance.
The controller. by agreement with the
school board, is to receive 81, 200 per an
mum for clerk hire Your honorable
bodies in making an appropriation for
Grafton the amount now paid the control-
ler for clerk hire by the school board
and allow such sum as In your judgment
would be just and equitable.
i cannot give my assent to the pecu-
liar, unique and somewhat original meth
DDS to which the controller has resorted
''in order to raise the emoluments of
his Office. and which. should the same
prevail, would be a gross imposition upon
the taxpayers.
Line S4ia-"For filling the approaches
to the Bloom avenue culvert." This Is
unwise legislation and misleading. The
filling Of the approaches to the Bloom
avenue culvert is virtually the grading
Of that portion Of Bloom avenue and
the method contemplated Is at variance
with, and in fact Is In direct opposition
to the statute governing street grading.
The proper way to do this work is to
first petition councils TO establish grade;
have viewers appointed to assess the
benefits and damages, or secure releases
from damages from all the property own
ers interested. There is no reason why
the city should appropriate funds for
grading this particular street when the
property owners abutting are the proper
parties to bear the expense. and further
the city would not only be doing the
grading but possibly would have to pay a
large bill for damage suits arising from
the grading.
In view of these facts my duty is clear
to veto the item.
PASSED OVER VETO.
Mr.. Roche was very insistent that
Clerk Lavelle read over twice that
portion of the communication referring
to the fact that the controller has not
paid over any of the money received
from the school board to the city treas
urer. When it had been read over
twice Mr. Roche leaned back in his
chair and laughed heartily, evidently
thinking this part of the letter a huge
Joke. Mr.. Lansing moved that the item
be passed despite the mayors veto.
| and it was passed by the following
vote:
Yeas-Finn. Kearney, Williams, Roche
Melvin. Chittenden, Wagner. Schneider
| Sanderson. Fellows, Schroeder, Lansing,
OBoyle. Frable. Coyne, Mo Andrew.-16.
Nays-Ross.-1.
Messrs. Finn. Kearney and Schneider
at first voted no. but changed their
| votes before the result was announced.
A motion to pass the item Of s, 900,
for approaches to the Bloom avenue
culvert, was lost by the following vote:
Yeas-Kearney. Roche. Frable, Coyne
McAndrew.--5.
Chittenden. Wagner. Schneider, Sander
son, Fellows, Schroeder, Lansing, o Boyle
-12
When the vetoing communication
was taken over to common council,
there was considerable fun. After il
had been read and the action Of select
noted, 1t was seen that the only thing
common had to act on was the veto of
the item for clerk hire, the other hav-
Ing been already sustained by select.
Mr.. Grier, however, who was the
father OF the Bloom avenue item, hay-
ing introduced 1t in the form of an
amendment, couldn't let the opportun-
ity go without saying his little say on
what he thought Of the veto.
OBTAINED PERMISSION.
He asked permission to speak on this
item. and when Chairman Keller re-
minded him that the matter was not
before the house, the gentleman from
the Third came up the aisle with a
white face and an I-defy-you- villain
air.
but ] demand. Mr.. Chairman, that
he given the right to speak. ! de-
mand 1t as a question of privilege"
thundered Mr.. Grier in stentorian
tones. waving his clenched fist in the
air.
well. II no member objects, the
chair gives you permission, only don't
take too long" said Chairman Keller.
Whereupon Mr.. Grier began a speech
about the mayor being misleading and
number of other things. After ne
had spoken for several minutes, NJ. V.
Morris Snrlnp To his feet a nd said.