The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-10
City News
QUICK SIDE.STEP
ON MAYORS VETO
THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO
GAS COMMITTEE.
This Action Construed AS an Admis-
sion of Weakness On the Part of the
Aldermen Who Have Been Boosting
for the Patterson Contract with Grim
Persistence.

Instead Of following the custom of
acting on the mayors veto of the ON
nibus lighting resolution Immediately |
after the reading of the message, the |
council last evening adopted the un-
usual course of referring it to COM
mittee. It had been supposed that such |
President A. E. Merrill had taken |
counsel with the city attorney and other
authorities and announced before the
meeting that motion to refer would
be in order.
While this action was a disappoint-
ment to those who attended the meet
ing in the hope of witnessing lively
tilt it was eagerly discussed. The gen
eral opinion was that the proceeding
was virtual admission of defeat by
the Patterson adherents, for if they had
been able to reply on the eighteen votes
required to pass the resolution over
the mayors veto, the vote would have
been called then and there. The refer
ence to the, gas committee is simply to
delay the matter in the hope that the
EIGHTEEN votes may be secured in one
way or another before the next coun-
Gil meeting. In the meantime, the Pat
terson company is lighting the mean
descent gas lamps, and is bearing its
burden lightly.
Al Walker Is Excited. ~
When the reading Of the veto mes
sage had been completed Alderman
Platt B. Walker jumped to his feet and
said: 1888 -.
II move that the mayors veto be
referred to the gas company
A hearty laugh from the aldermen
and visitors reminded Mr.. Walker that
he had made blunder and he prompt
ly amended his motion by changing 1t
to the ''committee on gas. ".
The history of this incandescent gas
lighting contract is brief, but interest
ing. After some filibustering last fall
bids were secured for incandescent gas
lighting, also for gas and for electric
lighting. The Patterson company, which
had held the contract for two years,
reduced its price from $13.40 to $l2.S5
per lamp per year. ..
After a sharp little fight the bids
were rejected and on readvertisement
the company reduced it's bid to 1925
per lamp per year. A contract was
awarded to the Patterson company by
the adoption Of the report Of the gas
committee. No resolution accompany
ing the report was presented and the
matter first came to the official atten-
ton of the mayor when the contract
was submitted to him for his signature.
He declined to sign the contract on the
ground that he had been deprived of
his right of review of the question by
the failure to award the contract by
resolution.
Court Susta1ns Mayor.
/ ( Mandamus proceedings were brought
( to compel the mayor to sign and by
the district court the mayors position
was sustained. The Patterson company
thereupon appealed to the supreme court
( where the proceedings are now pend
( ing. -
In the meantime, attempts were made
( TO award contracts to the Minneapolis
General Electric company and the Min:
neapolis Gas Light company by separ'
Z ate resolutions, but majority in the
! council defeated this move and insisted
, on the lighting contracts being kept
! together.
. J At the last meeting of the council
/ en- omnibus resolution authorizing the
three companies to light the city from
day to day according to the terms Of
their last bids was passed. This reso
luton the mayor vetoed and it wa!
this veto which last night was referred
to the committee on gas. II:
Text of Veto Message. -
The message accompanying the YETI
Is as follows:
The resolution deals with three separ
ate and distinct matters: Gas lighting b.
the Minneapolis Gas Light company, cleo
trio lighting by the General Electric com
- pany, and incandescent gas street lighting
by the Patterson Street Lighting company
AS regards the first two, your honorabl
body has already accepted, by unanimou
vote bids for a contract for the who'll
of the year 1906, and In my communica
ton to you under date of Dec. -, 1905
/ informed you that I found nothing OBJ
tectionable in the proposed contracts, bu
was compelled to withhold my slgnatur
!. from them because. they had not bee
awarded by resolution. =
There is therefore, no obstacle In TIL
7 way of giving the gas light company an
( the electric light company their respect
I've contracts for the year 1905, In &C
; cordance, with their bid, If proper resc
buttons to that effect be passed. At tn
same time, If you prefer not to pass res
: olutions accepting the bids of the ga
- light company, for the year 1906, separat
resolutions for each of the two compai
les, giving each of them a contract tel
rninable within the year, would meet wit
> my approval. Your honorable body ha
however, placed all three subjects tt
gether in an omnibus resolution, and
am, therefore, compelled either to al
I prove or disapprove the whole Of the re
olution as it stands. AS / have alreat
- advised you, have serious objections
the awarding Of any contract to the Pa
! terson Street Lighting company on tt
4 basis of the bid mentioned in this res
! luton, and, having such objections, I a
constrained to veto the whole of the re
olution. My reasons for this action a
4 as follows:
Compares the Figures.
- In my judgment the price stated in t
! bid Of the Patterson Street Lighting COZ
4 pany is excessive and unreasonable. 7,
: years ago the Patterson company i
stalled $500 lamp heads, and maintain
them at the price of s12.40 per lamp p
! year under a one-year contract. TT
contract was sufficiently advantageo
to the Patterson company that it soug
a continuance of the relation during t
- following year, and obtained new co
! tract for the year 1905 at the price
s13.4O per lamp, being 81 in advance
! the price for the previous year. It su
!. sequently developed that this excess "
in part the result of a mistake in t
calculations made by that company,