Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1906-09-20
COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.


last
After Clerk Estell had read the proceed
ings Of the last stated meeting, the ordin-
ance fixing the curb line and widening
Delaware street was read under Unfinished
business. Surveyor Carter explained some
changes in the original ordinance, which
obviated the necessity Of setting back the
curbs at Catteli's, Odd Fellows Hail, Will
kins' and Redfeld's, by bringing out the
curb lines at the Church property. A few
figures not being yet determined, on mo-
tion Of DR.. Reading, the ordinance was
laid over until next meeting and the Com
mittee instructed to have same completed.
The Broad street Improvement ordinance
was then taken up and read through for
she information Of the citizens present.
Then Mr. Cattell moved that the privilege
Of the floor be given to any citizen to
express his opinion on the proposed i'm
dinance. Mr.. A. w. Cattell arose and
asked Council if any petition had been
presented to Council asking that this street
be improved as proposed by the ordinance
He thought the City had enough on hand
at present without undertaking this i'm
provemens. He said the poor people could
not afford it. Mr.. Cattell spoke at con-
siderable length and was applauded-
hEr. VIM. II. Sithens said he did not
think the time had arrived yet to warrant
the outlay contemplated BY this ordinance,
and hoped Council would not pass it in its
present shape.
VIM. T. Cooper, representing Friends
meeting, agreed with Mr.. Sithens, that the
time had not yet arrived to make this i'm
proYement.
Hon. D. O. Watkins said as a taxpayer
he accepted the invitation to come to Coun-
Gil and express himself, as this improve
ment would affect him as a taxpayer. He
referred to the fact that nobody had petit
toned for it, and then proceeded to review
the financial condition Of the Gity-the
sewer debt not yet provided for; the need
Of new school house; the probability that
the City would vote to erect ligst plant,
and in spite of the fact that values had
been advanced nearly 100000. our tax
rate was SLIT on the S10O valuation.
R. D. Hughes, through Mr.. Cattell,
stated that the congregation Of the NJ. E.
Church was divided on the proposition.
Hon. j. Boyd Avis, representing Benz.
lSimmerman, protested against the improve
ment.
Lewis Jessup said he did not think the
time had arrived for the improvements.
S. A. Stewart and James Park expressed
the same opinion.
Bertha NJ Achelles, in communication
protested against the Improvement.
L. C. Paul protested against the improve
ment.
George Morley, in a letter, protested
against the Improvements.
Cornelia Coates, in letter, protested
against the improvement
A petition, signed by 40 tax payers on
Broad street, petitioned against the inn
provement.
DIR. Reading said the outpouring was not
as large as be hod hoped. and he thought
more time should be given for protest. He
therefore moved the matter be laid over for
two weeks
Mr.. Cattell said be did not agree with
the doctor. He thought we should settle
this ordinance now.
Mr.. Clark said that personally he wanted
be pavement, but be wanted to do what
the people wanted. He Thought two in
1uences were at work to defeat the ordin-
ance-one was the Bell Telephone Co. and
the other was the Public Service Corpor-
alton. He said he did not know just what
avenues they were working through, but
their hand was apparent.
Mr.. Watkins Thought it came with a
poor grace from Councilman to invite the
people here and then charge that they
came from any other motiye than those Of
taxpayers.
Mr.. Clark said his remark had no refer
ence to any person who had spoken or who
signed a petition, though be was satisfied
those corporations were against it.
| The vote Oh Mr.. Readings motion was:
Aye Burkett, Clark, Munyan, Pan
coast, Reading, KugIer. s.
No-Cattell, Pierson, Williams. 3.
The motion to lay over was therefore
carried, and on motion Of Mr.. Cattell the
taxpayers were ordered notified OF the
action. and invited to attend the next
meeting.
/ Lewis Starr, on the part Of the Trustees
|of Deptford Institute, asked il the 81, oOt
4 in the hands Of the Finance committee was