The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-11-08

Ine Iei1OFal UT Iue Sloue plci sup porting the railroad viaduct and stand ing on the North side of Congress St. at Housatonic avenue was the princi- pal matter discussed by the Board of Aldermen at it's last meeting last night. The north siders" were anxi- ous to get the matter out of the way so that the project would not be be- queathed to the incoming board.
 Mayor Buckingham took the floor against the hurried passing of legisla- tion. The city attorney who was au- thorized at previous meeting to arrange with the railroad company for the removal of the pier at an expense not to exceed s15.000 made a report last night to the effect that a plan could be devised where the work would only cost $S,065 After a great instruct the City Attorney to go ahead with the work at his own discretion.
 As soon as the City Attorneys re- port was read Alderman Primrose moved that the report was accepted. As soon as this was carried Alder man Primrose offered a resolution to the effect that the resolution adopted Oct 24, giving the City Attorney pow CT to act be rescinded.
 Alderman Gould moved as an amendment to the motion that the Primrose resolution be tabled and the amendment prevailed by a vote of IS to 1.
 Next Alderman Primrose offered a resolution that the City Attorney en- ter into a contract to remove the pier at an expense not to exceed SIP, ,00O, and moved it's adoption. Here the mayor asked President McMurray to take the chair and taking the floor himself he made a short speech in which he urged the aldermen to refer tee as he did not believe the members of the council were fully acquainted with the facts at hand. He said that the council had started out with the idea that the cost would be $21 GOO, had next limited the amount to $15,- 500, and now they were going to vote to spend $12,00O when there was a proposition before them to have the work done for $S,065.
 '"This is serious matter said the mayor. I don't believe any man in this council is ready to act on it to- night. Now there is something wrong in these figures or there is a radical difference in the character of the work that is proposed. I believe that the right thing to do is to send this matter to an appropriate committee and let them ascertain Sthe cost. The mayor resumed his chair and Alder man McMurray moved that Alderman PrimrOse'S second resolution be tabled The vote was lost by a vote of 13 to 10. Those who voted to table were McMurray, Clampett, Reddy, Conlin, Brady, O'Neil, Jackson, Feyrer, Mey- CT and Stewart.
 Against tabling were Aldermen Cassidy, Walker, Griffin, Lavery, Pad dock, Primrose, Gould. Wilder. Ber- M and Zink. Alderman Mahorey was absent at the time.
 On the failure to table the meas ure Alderman Primrose moved the adoption of his resolution and it was lost by vote of IT to 6. It was evident that several members had voted to keep the resolution from be- ing tabled only to get a chance to kill it off then and there. The six who voted for the resolution were Cassidy, Walker. Primrose, Wilder, Bertilson, and Fletcher.
 Alderman Gould next produced a written motion to the effect that the resolution adopted Oct. 24, 1910, giv- ing authority to City Attorney Culli- nan to enter into an agreement with the railroad be reenacted and adopted in its entirety. This was adopted by a vote of 13 to 10, putting the en- tire matter back where it was before the City Attorney submitted its re- port.
 The city attorney is now fully em- powered to make any agreement that he pleases. The 13 aldermen who voted to recloak the city attorney with power were the same who voted against tabling the Primrose resolu- ton which they afterwards killed.
 The resolution which the aldermen killed and brought back to life at the same meeting is as follows:
 Resolved, That Thomas M. Cullinan, City Attorney, be, and hereby is, in