The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-22
Council had the right to convey the citys

Council had the right to convey the city's property fin any such way.
 Alderman Sullivan opposed the amend ment The improvement proposed to close a most dangerous crossing, a cross ing having eleven tracks. The alderman said that from his personal experience the crossing should be closed. the quick CT the better.
 The Alderman from Ward B." said AL derman Sullivan. says no member of the Council has the nerve to say the ordi- nance Is a good thing and give req son for voting for 1t. I say that the proposition Is one of the best things ever presented to this Council. If the Alder man from Ward has not the nerve to vote for the ordinance, he needs ner- vine"
 Alderman Roemer supported the amend ment on the floor. There had been much talk about the railroads spending $2,50O or 5000 in the improvements. He said the ordinance proposed to give the rail- read property worth much more than that amount.
 The amendment of Alderman Forbes was voted down. ayes 6, nays 9.
 The vote was as follows:
 Ayes-Forbes, Roemer, Ryan, Gffflth. Kohn, Ruth-S.
 Nays-McIntyre, Coins, Gunter, Jack son, Lobman. Maddox. Strauss, Sullivan and Teague-9.
 The ordinance was then read.
 Forbes Makes Demand.
 That ordinance said Alderman Forbes. provides in the first paragraph for the resembling of an agreement made in 1890. I demand the reading of the agreement"
 The agreement was not in possession of the Streets Copmittee.
 Alderman Gunter, who was presiding. explained the main points in the agree ment.
 Alderman Forbes insisted on having the agreement
 Alderman Jackson arose to a point of order. He said the chair held that the agreement was not in the possession of the Council. and notwithstanding that, the Alderman from Ward continued to demand the agreement. He submitted that the Alderman's insistence was prob ably intended to delay a vote.
 Alderman Forbes thought the propo- sition to vote on the ordinance without the Aldermen knowing what 1t contained was ridiculous. He asked if there was not city ordinance requiring a publica- tion of the intention of parties to close a street before an ordinance taking such action could be passed. It developed that there was no ordinance of that sort. The ordinance was passed, ayes Il, nays 4.
 Alderman Forbes submitted his protest to the Council upon the passage of the ordinance. The protest was a long type- written article reviewing his reasons for opposing the ordinance.
 Alderman Sullivan objected to the pro- test By a vote, however, the Council directed that the protest should be enter ed on the record.
 The ordinance fixing the salary of the License Inspector at $500 was taken up. It was explained by Alderman Kohn that the License Inspector had been overlook ed when the general appropriation ordl- nance was passed. The passage of the ordinance would not, therefore, violate the city charter, which forbids the raiS- ing of an officials salary during his term of office.
 Alderman Sullivan warmly opposed the ordinance. The License Inspector. he said, had been receiving $l.200 year. He declared, too. that the Police Department was doing the work of the license inspec-