The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-06-15

where gen.
tleman from the Fourth ward got his
figures for his Statistics he said. Il
don't know whether they are accurate
Possibly they are. know that in the
committee meeting there was one MEM
Der that kicked on the proposition to
raise the mayors salary, but when the
ballot was taken there was no dissenting
vote. Now why this change of heart
why does he go before the committee
and vote for one thing and come here in
the council and vote exactly opposite
Because the mayors Office is locked it
IS not evidence that he is not working
for the city, Mr.. Miller almost shouted
I have experienced no change of
heart" said Mr.. Clancy in reply. Il
explained once that was opposed to the
proposition in the committee meeting
but voted on it because of the statement
that the two absent members as well as
those present were for it,
Mr.. Weber arose to say that he did
not want to be misunderstood THE
money is not too much if his time is
wholly devoted to the duties of the city,"
he said.
A vote resulted in adopting the section
making the mayors salary $500 per
annum.
PAY FOR COUNCILMEN
The wrangle over the councilmen's
salary became quite muddled. Council
man Warner charged some of the others
with allowing sentiment control their
vote on this proposition. He said that
there was no questioning the fact that a
councilman earned 5000. He said he be-
lieved that he earned fully $500 last year.
Councilman Clancy moved that the
sum be placed at $3.50 per annum, in
stead of 5000. He explained that he
voted in committee meeting to make
the amount $500. but that he thought it
should be cut down He felt that he
could manage to get along without the
raise.
Councilman Weber moved that it be
made 500 instead Of $3.50 and received
consent.
Councilman Nichols said that so
long as the city is as hard up as 1t is
and Is borrowing money, I am not in
favor of raising salaries. We are all
able to get along without a raise"
7 am willing to go it for $50, the same
as before said Mr.. Troutman.
WHY WARNER FAVORS IT.
Il have talked to a number of the
councilmen about the matter" said Mr..
Warner and as a matter of fact they
all want all they can get If the mayor
is to get 81, 500 we should get $500. Not
that I want it particularly. I can get
along without it but it is just that
should get it,. He concluded by appeal
ing to them all to be honest with them
selves and not to kill the amendment
Councilman BergundthaI said he stood
with Mr. Warner. L am going to vote
for the raise in our salary he said. IF
the people want to call me a salary
grabber all right. I have talked with
a great many business men who have
expressed themselves of the opinion that
we should receive more pay. I believe
that some Of the cOG1ncilmen are gov
erned by sentiment and are not giving
US straight talk"
Councilman Griley said that inasmuch
as the mayor was to receive a $500 raise,
he was in favor of $3.50 for the council
men.
Mr.. Weber craved one more word. He
said that if the city was able to pay the
salary he would ask it. but he said.
last year I attended committee meeting
nearly every Saturday and neglected my
grocery business thereby loosing hun
dredS of dollars. as you all know that
Saturday is the busiest day of the week
I am still ready to do the same thing
over again.
BY this time no one seemed to know
what the motion was and it was
to place the salary at $50. The motion
was carried. The following councilmen
voted for $50 salary Miller, Neil,
Weber, Clancy, Nichols and TrOutman.
Those for 5000 per annun were: Bergund-
thai. Myers, Griley, Warner and Swend-
son.
Before the ballot on the ordinance was
taken Councilman Nichols decided to
change his vote on this proposition. He
was of the opinion that if any of the
salaries were to be raised. his should be.
His vote changed the situation. The
councilmen We're to receive 5000 per an
mum.
And this was what blocked the ordi-
nance when it was being voted upon
as a whole.
SWOOP DOWN ON SMALL FRY.
The ordinance also contemplated MAX
ing the salary of the office which VIM.
Fulton holds in the city engineers Office
$65. instead of $780, which he now gets.
Argument brought out the fact that
plenty of men could be secured to do the
work required for $50, and the ordinance
was amended to read $50 per month
The last section of the ordinance re-
lated to the time of the city employees
when not working. It required that they
receive no pay for such time as they did
no work.
Councilman Myers asked to have that
amended so as to not conflict with the
privilege granted the firemen and police
men by the council a year ago, allowing
them ten days lay-on on full pay, as
a vacation, each year.
Councilman Miller objected to the
lay-off proposition. He said that when
he had to work in council meeting until
midnight for Is cents he did not think
the firemen should get ten days vaca-
ton without furnishing a man to take
their place This matter was left how
ever to be decided at another time.
The council adjourned to meet in spe-
citl session on Monday, June "a.