The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-07-17


The common council met in regular
session at o'clock last evening, Presi-
dent Kendrick In the chair and quorum
present.
Councilman Kendrick moved that the
resolution appropriating $i5o.ooo for the
erection OF a new central fire station be
taken from the table, and 1t was so voted.
and then a recess was taken to enable
the members to examine the plans.
When business was resumed, a resolu-
tion was introduced by the committee on
city property providing that the commit
fire station on the land owned by the
city on Exchange place and furnish the
same, the expense not to exceed $1b0.ooo.
The resolution was passed.
Councilman Angel moved that the reso-
luton adding sil5o to the appropriation
for the recorder of deeds be taken from
the table. and 1t was so voted, and then
on motion of Councilman Angel, the
resolution was passed.
Councilman Angel. from the commit
tee on fiuance, presented resolution
health department. and also "A resolution
transferring $3.50 to the appropriation for
the clerk of common council and COM
mittees. Both resolutions were adopted.
Councilman Wright from the commit
tee on city property, presented report
submitting a resolution appropriating
$4,000 for the erection of a primary
Dora street. in the Eighth ward. The
resolution was passed.
RAIL REMOVAL MATTER.
Councilman Moore. from the committee
on railroads, presented a report on cer-
tain petitions relative to removal OF rails
from India street.
The report was simply a resume of the
controversy which has existed for some
time between the city or Providence and
the Consolidated railroad In relation to
the rails on canal, South Water and
India streets.
1t wound up by stating that inasmuch
as the action of the common council had
been taken on the advice of the law de-
partment the committee still believed
that the matter should not be taken from
the hands OF the law department, and
should not be disturbed by the city coun-
ell, except at request o. the city solicitor
and the committee asked TO be relieved
from further consideration of the Ques-
tion.
Councilman Cooke said that II appeared
to him that the report of the committee
seemed to be based upon the fear of
interfering with the law department OF
the city OF Providence. But he feared
that the committee was in error.
He stated that the resolution that was
drawn up on July was approved by the
city solicitor, and, I'm fact was drawn
by him and member OF the committee
on railroads. The city knew that the
Consolidated road laid q claim to the right
OF keeping it's rails on South Water street,
but IL did not know that IT made the
same claim on India street.
THE RAILROADS CLAIM.
Now the city council knows, from the
attorney OF the Consolidated road, that
IL does claim the right to hold the south
track on India street, but ~ does not claim
any right to hold the north track or
the spur track
formed that the decision OF the count
on the matter of South Water street
would determine the Consolidated road
upon its action In the India street mat
ter
Councilman Cooke further said
II also understand that the company
has communicated with parties under
an agreement by which they might sus-
pend the use of the spur tracks on 80
days notice, notifying shippers using
those spur tracks that they would have
to discontinue on or before Sept. 3.
thereby indicating that the order of the
city OF Providence was TO be respected.
Now then. think the view OF the
committee and OF the city solicitor Is,
assuming that tho decision of the
court would be obtained I'm a short
time. probably soon after II sits again
after vacation, that IL would be wise
and well to postpone action until the
decision of the court should be obtained
And am Informed that the New Hav-
en- road has admitted that the decision OF
the court will determine and conclude it,
and II the court should decide adversely
TO the New Haven road II will proceed at
once or within 30 days to remove the
rails. III 4 am correctly Informed. the
committee In this view OF the rlatter de-
cided II wise TO advise pos;ponement or
action"
AIR Cooke wanted 10 k- " II Il was :be
.i''cntion, In case the committee WI. Dis
charged. TO give no heed to this PARTON,
all important as II was. Was this the
intention, or not?
WHY ARE THEY AFRAID:
Has this COMMITTEES chaneei IFS mind?
Who and what are they nfrail of Why
aev they asked to be relieved. when on
July they had agreed TO recommend a
RESOLUTION graniing. an extension cc time
~ asked for?
Why did they on Monday night lsst
send an expression OF opinion to one
board where n did not belong. and now
refuse To give an expression of opinion
% this hoau.
Councilman Cooke thought that II there
vas any nilisirrehension In regard 20 the
sssitucs ~. ,iia lsv dsyartussnt.hs wema.