The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1904-12-31
THE MAYORS DEFENSE.

to devote much space to prove
whether Mayor Doctor Seallon's
medicine is good or bad to take. He
ought to know more about that than
those who lay no claim to a knowl-
edge OF rolling pills; but his acts
and those of the council are subject
to criticism by the public and the
press, and when he replies to these
criticisms by indulging in coarse
personalities he acknowledges the
weakness Of his position.
In the last issue Of the Journal the
mayor is quoted very freely on the
question Of thu unequal and unjust
division Of the city into wards, and
his arguments leave q suspicion in
the mind that there may be some job
in the matter, although 1t has not
developed. DR.. Scallon, mayor, says
this matter Of dividing the city
received great deal more attention
and thought than some Of the critics
could give it. The division on Third
street was not made hurriedly or
without thought " Let US see what
thought, and how much time, was
given to its consideration. The
ordinance is numbered LOG and the
records Of the city show that it was
introduced on the night Of August 3,
and railroaded through three read
ings, under an illegal suspension of
the rules, as the mayor is in the
habit Of doing with any pet measure
he wishes to pass in a hurry. The
people knew nothing about it until it
had been rushed through without
giving them a chance TO discuss 1t.
The law requires a three-fourths vote
of all members Of the council to sus-
pend the rules and pass an ordinance
through three readings and make it
law in one evening. The reason for
this is obvious; it is tc prevent rail-
reading important measures through
without due consideration. At this
meeting the minutes show but
four members present and voting, in
GLIDING the mayor. One Of these
members voted against a suspension
Of the rules and thtee voted Tor it,
the mayor included. This was less
than the required three -fourths vote,
yet the mayor assumed authority to
declare the rules suspended and the
ordinance passed through its separate
readings and duly enacted as a law.
He detied the law when he declared
the ordinance passed. This was all
done within thirty minutes after its
introduction. That is the extent of
consideration and thought given It.
If the records are correct, the ordin-
ance was illegally passed and the
mayor either ignorautly or willingly
violated the law by declaring it
passed under the suspension of the
rules. Here is a good opening for
legal complications, something that
ought to be avoided.
The mayor again says, speaking OF
the ordinance, as it il, the business
portion Of the city is nearly equally
divided = Let Us see If this state
ment is any nearer the truth than
some others. There are 10 the First
ward, or east Of Third street, 53
business places and industries, in
the Second ward We fud but -. or
about twice the number in one that
there are in the other The mayor
stated to ua another reason, he did
not want all the saloons in one ward
His business division Is not much
better than that Of population with
500 in one ward and $500 in the
other.
Another argument Of the mayor
IL that with four couuciimen the
business will be better handled than
with -ix-he says five, including
the mayor, ah0 has no vote in the
council except on tie, although he
exercises il whenever necessary In
suspeudiuR the rules. We do not
agree with him that four members
are sufficient to properly represent
all parts Of the city With six mem
bers there would be less opportunity
for the mayor to railroad legislation
through before the people have an
opportunity to express themselves.
That much would be gained by the
larger number
The cost Of holding elections Is
another of the mayors objections to
giving the people proper representa-
tion by creating three wards. The
additional cost would not exceed s25
and II the people are to be deprived
Of a representation which they are
entitled to for so small a sum, Why
not abolish all wards and turn the
whole thing over to the mayor He