Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1903-09-15
CITY COUNCIL DEAD LOCK
NO QUORUM PRESENT At THE REGULAR
MONTHLY MEETING.
The Democratic Members Of The Board
Absent Themselves No Business
Is Transacted.


meeting Of the Mayor and City Council.
but when the hour of s o'clock arrived
only four members of the Board Mayor
Jones ahd Aldermen Martin. Baer and
Thompson, T. A., were present.
The other four Democratic members
of the Board. Counselor Riley and Alder
men Williams. Thompson, +. II and
Strange absented themselves from the
meeting for reasons unexplained. At
clock the Mayor ordered the clerk to
call the roll No quorum being present
at the call. the Mayor said no business
of the Board could be transacted.
Alderman Martin sought to have the
Mayor COMPEL the attendance of the
absent members, and his efforts were
seconded by Alderman Thompson. IA.
who moved that the Mayor order the
Chief of Police to bring inthe absentees.
Mayor Jones, however, decided that he
had no power to take such action in
the absence Of quorum.
The Mayor said there were several
matters of importance to come before
the Council, and he was in hopes they
would be able to transact the business
of the Board Mr.. James w. Owens,
counsel for Louis 5. Clayton, contestee
for City Clerk. was present and read a
communication in reference to the man
damus suit now pending before Court.
which he desired to get the action OF the
Council in the matter, in order TO save
the expense of multiplicity of cases.
Mr.. Owens said as there were fourteen
officers interested, that they had taken
Mr.. Clayton, which would decide the
other thirteen, but il the Council objected
to this, then they would try each case
separately, which would cost the city
S42o. The Mayor said there being no
quorum present, no action could be taken
in the matter at this meeting. Alderman
Martin submitted the following which he
requested the Mayor to have read
Whereas. there is now pending in the
the mandamus case of Louis 5. Clayton
VS.. the Mayor, Counselor and Aldermen
of the City of Annapolis, and
Whereas, difference of opinion exists
as to the merits of said case and the
present City Council is equally divided
upon the questions involved in the said
mandamus case, and
Whereas, the City Counselor, Mr..
Hugh X. Riley has before said City
Council given his opinion that the con-
tentions of the petitioner is correct and
unless some provision is made for the
appointment of a special counsel in the
case, there will be no attorney in the
case to make the contentious OF the Mayor
and three Aldermen who differ from the
expressed opinion Of the Counselor, and
Whereas, there exists a precedent for
the course now proposed, when in 1897,
the then Counselor, Frank ii. Stockett,
Jr., having given an opinion in favor of
the parties filing the petition against the
City Government, declined to represent
the city in the suit of Jones ct. al. VS.. the
Mayor, Counsellor and Aldermen of the
City Of Annapolis, and at his own sug-
gestion the Mayor was requested to
employ other counsel, and Messrs Robert
Moss and Elihu S. Riley were employed
and later paid by the Mayor, Counselor
aud Aldermen of the City Of Annapolis.
Therefore, be it ordered that the Mayor
be and he is authorized to designate some
attorney to represent the views of the
said Mayor and Alderman Martin, Baer
and Thompson, T. A., the passage ol
this order in no manner obligating the
Mayor, Counselor and Aldermen OF said
city to pay said attorney for his services.
Alderman Martin and the three Re-
publican members are strongly opposed
to having the city represented by Coun-
selor Riley alone in the mandamus case
recent y instituted against the city. They
contend that as he has often directly ex-
pressed his opinion in favor of the posi-
ton of the petitioner, who is the Dem
ocratic nominee for City Clerk, who re-
ceived four votes at the meeting of July
goth, he should have as associate counsel
in defending the city some unprejudiced
attorneys, MIR. Riley, however, declines
to allow any other attorney to appear
with him in the case. As the controversy
in the present city ENHANCEMENT is chiefly
between Alderman Martin and Counselor
Riley and the Democrats, Mr.. Martin
insists tina. Mr.. Riley is not qualified to
represent him in court
Mayor Jones said owing to no quorum
be present no action could be taken lr
the matter and, on motion of Alderman
NJ artin, the Council adjourned until
clock tonight.