Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1900-11-28
CITY COUNCIL.

two boards adjourned. CONSIDERABLE
routiue business was transacted, re-
mort of which will be found in the OIL
cial proceedings. The main feature 10,
ward which ell eyes had been turned
was the matter concerning the electric
railway. and it was confidently believed
by many that the ordinance requiring
the company TO run its cars through the
streets at no greater speed than hve
miles an hour would be repealed. a
Joint SESSION OF ia, two boards was neid
Tor the purpose Of hearing Msssrs. A.
G.. Uhler, l. p. Hirlow aud T.. NJ. BIZ
rell, d commit tee appointed o. the meet
ing of the patrons Of the road held Mon
dav night. After hearing the grievances
urged by these gentlemen an attempt
was made 10 the Common Counoll TO
repeal the ordlnsn o and re'enact the
old one, which allowed an elght-miie
speed, Dus the movement failed, ten
members only voting for the repeal OF
the ordinance, while the rule required
twelve.
BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
Six Aldermen we're present, and mos.
of be BUSINESS transacted came IRON
the lower bosrd.
The petition of Gardner l.. Boothe
and A. ID. Brockett for the paving Vi
Princess street, between Washing on
ard Columbus, granted by the Common
Couocil Ut the last meeting, was taBen
up ard granted.
Mr.. Hill offered an ordinance com
pelling the Washington, Alexandra
and Mount Vernon Railway Company
10 paw inlo the city treasury the sum Of
81, 600 year for a period OF hiteen
years for the privilege OF using Royal
street.
Mr.. J. T. Sweeney moved to strike
out the words "iOr period OF hiteen
ysars.n He said that never in tho MIS-
toy of Council bad the city heen seer
| 10 a position when it was not prepared
| TO do justice 10 sDy corporation; 1t nae
never taken advantage OF one; but II
this instance Council was not prepared
10 enter into contract with the rail
way company nor to lease street to II
He seriously questioned the legality o
such procedure. Il would De one
sided contract, for one street only, ant
should the company deem 1t advisable
10 use some otner street 1t could sDan
don Royal at any time. Should leas'
be effected 10 this case the city coui'
lease any other street-thst would D
the precedent Get. There was no guar
autee Oh the part Of the electric rail"a.
company that they would occupy tn
street permanently. They could pul
up their track at any time, go 10 som
other street and pay only for the TIM
they had used Royal street. Th
city would have no claim on then
Tor any other street. MIR. STeene.
reiterated many things be had sai'
at recent meetings OF the board re
garding issues between the city and To
company. He, however, had no ali
mostly toward the railway company
but was in Council as O represeDtstiv
OF the people, and his action was in To
interest of the city. He was for ial
play at all times, bn. was averse t
granting special privileges to any. In
city had nothing whatever to gain b.
he passage OF the pending ordinance
Mr.. Hill suggested that the ordi
nance recently introduced by MI
Sweeney, taxing the company 81, 500
year for the Lse of Royal street wltnou
specifying auy limit, rendered the cit.
Just az helpless should the compan.
conclude to abandon Royal street.
Mr.. Sweeney again TOOK tie floor II
opposition 10 the measure. he said
among other things, that the elecLri
railway company used Royal street 10
pecuDiary object. That was thei
primary view
Mr.. Clark-"Don't all roads us
streets for the same purposeW
Mr.. Sweeney said yes" but he al
legged that this company would not pa.
the Just assessments Of the City Coun
Gil until compelled to do so. He re
ferred 10 the present law. compelling
the cars to run at fve-mile gait with
in the city Unite, and charged the com
pauy with attempting TO put the ClI.
Council in false position. He did no
believe the cars were running five mile
40 hour. If they were it was the frs
time the company had attempted t
carry cut law OF the city. IL was
well-known fact that they had violated
the e,ght-mile law
After further debate vote on NJ
Sweeney's amendment was taken ant
It was lost-Messrs. Sweeney ant
Curtin volipg eye, aud Messrs. Hill
D. bic, CLARK and Mr. President no.
A voc was then taken on the ordl
nance and it as lost for want of con
stitulioual m,jority-Messrs. Hill
Dooie, Clark aud Mr.. President votinl
for it, and Messrs Sweeney and Clrtil
against 1t.
The petition OF Martin Lawler for re
moval of the pump on the west side o
Washington street, between Wolfe an
Wilkes, granted by the Common Coun
Gil at the last meeting, was read, an
some discussion was precipi!ated. 4
petition of about a dczsn people pro
testing against the removal Of the puml
was presented, but Mr.. Hill said be hat
been told by an official OF the Waite
Company that all houses on the squar
had hydrants. After further discussion
,etween Messrs. Sweeney, Hill AM
Clark, the action OF the Common Coun
Gil was concurred 10 by a unanimou
vote.
A petition Of c F. Thompson, electri
clan (accomp panied by the names of
number OF King street merchants), ask
log the privilege Of using elee
tricily for lighting their places q
busioess during tho month of Decembe
and three or four days 10 Janusry. Wa
received from the Common Council
After debate during which 1t wa
charged thai some had oeen abused tn
| --i..;Io-n nrnnanh Lat nanan har a M