The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-08-19

10 the proposed light plant to be built BY
the city. ! admit that am a member OF
a municipal ownership club. ! am In
formed by Gus wsrnecke and others that
the specifications submitted by ID J..
oBierne are not OF an up-to-date electric
Light plant. and | am further informed
that there are no provisions for any build
ings, smokestacks or any sized wire for
the lighting Of the city This information
leads me 10 believe that tho whole thing
is a fake and not worth the money tina;
would be paid.
Mr.. j.. J. PASTORAL and a delegation |
Of citizens, including Messrs. Frank Col y, |
Woodhead and others, called upon NE |
during this week aad / told them that II |
they would have the council called to- |
gether in a special meeting to discuss the
matter, al which experts would be pres
ent to go through the specifications. II the
same proved to be sufficient ard satisf1c-
tory aud worth the money, I would gladly
vote for the proposition al the next meet
ing Contractor O'Bierne called upon mo
about TWO weeks age, and made the same
proposition 10 him. So gar. have hea.d
Nothing further from these gentlemen
Regarding the eight-hour working sys-
tom ordnance that was temporarily de-
feated last Monday, wish 20 say l was
on the ordinance committee and In the
committee room / urged that tue day $
compensation be fixed at 81 instead Of
s1.T5 This was opposed by the other
members OF the committee and finally
signed the ordinance as II stood. When
the ordinance was introduced and read,
even 10 Its third reading, there was not a
dissenting voice. Alderman O'LeaTy's
amendment was offered for the second
time after the third reading of the ordi-
nance aud before the ordinance was OF
fered for adoption. A motion was made
to adopt both the ordinance and amend
ment at the same time, but the mayor re-
fused to put the amendment thus, or IN
any other way until after the ordinance
was put, and as 1t would have required
two-trrds vote to adopt the amendment
after the ordinance had been adopted we
voted against the ordinance and defeated
Il for one week. The ordinance with the
amendment incorporated will come UP
Monday and it will be adopted"
~
Alderman o'Leary said; ITO answer
your questions. permit me to state as fol-
! lows am not opposed to municipal
! ownership. On the contrary, | think that
under proper conditions it might prove
Esbutabltt pAL bt Ludsl ~ ~ may A6Ao
tne position that when the citizens vote
an amount OF money for a purpose tho
! aldermen, who are their Servants, ought
10 make enCrt to carry out their wishes
as far as II is for the clty's interest 10
do SO.
What conditions are now 10 be consid-
cred. Some few years ago some (not)
expert Appropriated that about Sl00,yy0
would give tho city an up date electric
light plant and vote without then look
iug into the Ger AMY OF same was passed
WHAT now appears to be the situation?
Wcil just this: The public might am st
US well throw the 100000 Into the bayou
rs 10 use it for what you might call Gu
electric light plant. OF course you cAn
get a 100000 plant. but what would yuu
have?
If the city can afford to start out with,
, say $4,000 10 construct u plant, then obey
, would have something for their money
, hSyo taken pains 10 lind out from those
I who are In the business and do know. II
the city had no Light and could do no
better, then 1t would be different True.
} l might say they could add TO It from time
to time. This, however, is only in keep Ii :
with the man who wanted pair Of oil
: shoes for So and wanted TO get them, but
i his merchant urged: Why you can get
pair for SIPS, there being this difference.
+ the s. poir would give good service, waere-
A. the SID pair would need patching evesy
Tow weeks.
According to the old democratic prin-
ciple tho majority should rule; that IS. "
1t suits US. Take either side. Without
, any investigation a majority OF the votes
} cast favored the issuance of bonds
Now majority OF their servants, acting
for them in good faith have Investigate
and say by their votes: The investment
s OF that amount at this time is wrong un-
: der The circumstances. Should not the
/ Judgment Of the majority prevail?
I 1T Is questionable If the attorney gen.
S eral would register bonds under the very
i peculiar circumstances, even IL con-
t tract should be made for the reason that
o the proposition originated with a board OF
= light commissioners, who have, as mat
: ter OF fact, no legal existence, and in this
, way reached the board OF public works
c resulting in a rejection. The same propo-
sition exactly comes to the council and
an alderman moves its reference to COM
5 mitsee The mayor ruled that all bid;
. should go to the board of public works,
= There are two sides to this situation
: one being charter provision that before
Il acting reference should he made to the
. board Of public works. The other is un.
y denisble. The CITY advertised for bids, re.
s serving the right to reject any or all bids
so the council did not refer to that board
9 but the mayor did Therefore It VIII b.
Z seen that the council and not the mayo
t should refer The council has the exclu
It slve right to reject any bid without re
i ferrng to the board, but when the council
8 refers to that board they must adopt the
+ recommendation or negative It by two
i thirds majority vote of all the aldermen
5 What is the attorney general to view Il
the premises since the proceeding leadin
e to contract were had regularly an
g legal3 But in this instance the recor
t must show neither one nor the other"
o y +
Q Alderman Sonnen said: Tho principal
:; reason for my opposition to the electri
: light plant now before the council 70
1t consideration relative to municipal ow
n nership is that l am convinced that I
II is entirely inadequate to furnish the Ugh
. necessary in city the saze OF lIouston
At present we have 2S6 arc street lights
,r used by the city and could use $50 NOR,
i TO give the public proper light saryice
! The capacity of the plant for which WI
70 received bids is only 500 arc lights Now