Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-04-16

was simply evasion, as were many 9th
e. replies in the answer.
Col. Caldwell took up the question Of
the approval Of the bonds Of newly
elected members Of. the Board Of Pub
lie Works. He took the position that
| the approval of the bonds by both
branches was necessary before the new
ly elected officers were entitled to hold
their offices, and he emphasized the
point that a bond is a contract with the
city. No ingenuity OF construction of
the language of the law will justify the
statement that the city does not enter
into a contract when 1t accepts the
bonds.
Rules of Council
Col. Caldwell read Rule Il, of the
Rules of Council. which says, in effect,
that bonds shall be approved by the
Second Branch and then sent to the
First. with an endorsement of the ac-
tion of the Second Branch thereon. The
rule stops there. Because it doesn't say
anything further shall be done 1t is
argued that no action by the First
Branch is required. The rules must be
taken collectively. Rule 80 relating to
granting coffee house licenses. is SINH
larly constructed. Will it be maintain
ed that concurrence by the First Branch
is not necessary to the granting of a
coffee house license? Even if the ordi-
nance would expressly say that the con-
eurrence of the First Branch is not nee
essary, the ordinance would be void be-
cause it conflicts with the act of the
Legislature which requires that all con-
tracts must be approved by both
branches of Council.
Col. Caldwell took up the point of
contemporaneous construction. He said
that all bonds have been approved by
both branches of Council, ever since the
act of 1863 went into effect. He quoted
authorities to show that contemporary
o Il construction and practice should
not be disregarded except for cogent
reasons. If there is ambiguity in the
language OF the statute the practice
when the language first goes into effect,
and long acquiescence in the practice,
makes the construction so strong that
legislation should be necessary to
change it.
Col. Caldwell was followed by
John j. Conih
for the respondents. He characterize
ed some of Col. Caldwelrs assertions as
reckless, and said that several matters
which he discussed could have no bear
ing upon the demurrer. The petition
ers allege that Council lever met. That
contention was based on the claim that
an adjournment was had, and that a
pretended meeting was subsequently
held. The answer specifically denies
that fact. President Hill ignored the
half dozen Democrats who were upon
their feet demanding the ayes and noes.
He declared the motion to adjourn car
ried, without calling for the negative
vote, and Notwithstanding Democrats
were on their feet to appeal from his
decision. He then hurriedly left the
chair, and there was no presiding off,
Ger to appeal to.
Mr.. Coniff called attention to the rule
of Council which requires a branch de-
string to adjourn to first notify the
other branch of its intention to do so.
President Hill either did not know OF
the existence of the rule, or ignored 1t.
The Second branch placed a man in the
chair to carry out its proceedings. The
First Branch did not adjourn at all.
"A motion to adjourn was made, and a
messenger was sent to notify the other
branch. Before he returned the Second
Branch had passed a resolution to 60
into joint session, and Council went
into joint session.
Mr.. Conif said Col. Caldwell had
suggested that Council had no legal
right to compel attendance OF absen-
tees. The warrant for absent members
was regularly issued under Rule 81. He
thought Col. Caldwell was not serious,
because in the demurrer he sets up the
fact that the Republicans tried to do
the very thing which he claims to
have been illegal, but abandoned it be-
cause the City Sergeant was a Demo-
crat. Mr.. Coniff quoted from the Acts
of 1868, to show that it gives authority
to members of Council to compel the
attendance of absentees.
Col. Caldwell said that neither clerk
made any record. MIR. Coniff said that
was done on the advice OF counsel
Col. Caldwell himself.
Questions nv Judge Heryey.