The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-03-10

Mayor Reilly transmitted two mes-
sages to the council last night and
each one was veto of resolutions
which had passed the council at the
previous regular meeting. One of the
messages gave notice that the mayor
had refused to sign the resolution di-
recting the city attorney to bring
action for damages against Messrs.
Storrle and Hatton. The other gave
notice that the resolution taking over
the material from the paving contrac-
tors that had been placed on the
ground for paving the east side of De-
Villier street was also being return
ed unsigned. The messages provok-
ed a lively discussion, but in each
case the veto of the mayor was sus-
tained. The first veto, covering the
matter of compromise with the paving
company, was carried by vote OF
nine to one. The second veto. con-
corning the city attorney bringing ae-
tion for damages, was carried close
ly. Aldermen Concannon, Kent, Kugle-'
man, Renshaw and Welsh voted
against sustaining the veto. Alder
men Bear, Dunham, Pfeiffer, Roche
blave and Williams voted with the
mayor. The president, Mr.. Greenhut.
also voted on the question: He sus-
Aldermen Bear, Concannon, Dun
ham, Kent, Kugleman, Pfeiffer. Rem
shaw, Rocheblave, Welsh and Will
liams responded to roll call. Presi-
dent Greenhut presided. There was
no alteration in the recorded proceed
ings of the last regular meeting and
the minutes were adopted.
The mayors communications were
then read and discussed The clerks
read the first message, as Follows: 8
THE MAYORS VETO.
Pensacola, F1a., March s. 1910.
Honorable President and City Council,
City of Pensacola, City.
Gentlemen: / am returning you
herewith resolution passed by the city
council February 23rd, 1910, provid-
ing for a compromise with the South
ern Paving Construction Company, on
account of work being held up on De-
Villier street in order to relay the
sewer. without my approval for the
following reasons, viz:
1st That the acting city attorney,
Hon E. c. Maxwell, advises me that
in his opinion the city is not liable
for demurrage under the contract
with the Southern Paving Construc.
ton Company.
End. That it will be April 1st before
the remainder of the paving work
is completed, if that SOON and as the
repairs on the DeVillier street sewer
should be nearing completion by that
time, and as it will not work a hard
ship or inconvenience the paving COM
pany materially, as the city under
contract will have to pay them for
all extra work, I do not think it to
the city's interest to pay for the ma
terial or enter into compromise
for labor and other expenditures.
! attach herewith the opinion of the
city attorney, bearing upon the mat
ter.
Respectfully,
FRANK REILLY, Mayor.
THE SECOND VETO.
The second veto message was as
follows:
Pensacola, Fla, March s, 1910
Honorable President and City Council,
City of Pensacola.
Gentlemen ] am returning you
herewith resolution passed by the city
council February 23rd, 1910, instruct
ing the city attorney to institute suit
against the consulting engineer and
the sewer contractor for the defective
condition Of the DeVillier street sew
er. without my approval, for the fol-
lowing reasons, viz:
1st. That the city attorney advises
me that in his opinion from the evil
dence submitted to him that he was
unable to fix the responsibilities for
the defects in the DeVillier street sew
er as the fault or neglect of either the
consulting engineer or the contractor;
On Pane TyUo