The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1911-02-23
THE MAYORS VETO.


The controversy of the appointment
of city attorney has been the dis
turbing element in the city council at
every meeting that body has held this
year. The majority of the council
who favored the appointment OF Judge
Derby, refuse to confirm the mayor S
appointment of Attorney f. G. Smith
and submitted a contract with Judge
Derby. When the agreement came
before the mayor, he refused to sign
it, asserting that it was an illegal pro-
cedure. The reasons for their deter
mination to appoint Judge Derby are
certainly reasonable. The present
body, with the exception of one mem
ber, is composed of holdover MEMBERS
who have had the opportunity to see
the work that Judge Derby has done
toward Strengthening out the legal
affairs of the city and making 1t possl-
bic for the council to accomplish some
thing. Judge Derby has proved highly
satisfactory in his official capacity.
But it should not be interpreted from
this assertion that it is intimated That
f. C.. Smith would not make an ell
cient officer. This is the point to re-
member, the majority Of the council
know how they stand when co-operat-
ing with Judge Derby. From past eX-
perience they are ready to enter under
takings for the city's needs without
the fear of being inundated with intrl-
cate legislation. They have a weighty
argument. But what has been the
attitude of the mayor? He has blocked
the progress of the councils action at
every possible turn by an untaVorable
stand toward the Derby ordinance.
His sincerity and persistency in up
holding the action of the minority may
be admirable, if he has some benefit
for the city up his sleeve that the
ordinary citizen his not been able to
discover.
The Derby ordinance had its final
passage. At the next meeting OF the
council after this important event.
Councilman Brosus moved that the
ordinance be reconsidered at the next
meeting. The motion was carried.
The mayor had prepared veto, but
it was not filed till after this meeting
At the next regular meeting of the
council, following up his plans to keep
the ordinance out of the way OF the
mayors veto. since it would have been
impossible to have passed it over his
head on account Of the absence OF
Councilman Arnold, Councilman Bro
sius moved that the ordinance be re-
considered and placed in the hands Of
the finance committee. The motion
was ruled out of order, the mayor
asserting that the procedure was
illegal. Indeed, the procedure would
perhaps have been out of order, if the
veto had been filed before the motion
to reconsider was carried at the pre-
ceding meeting. Leaving aside the
story of the parliamentary procedure
of the ordinance since the above date,
turn to an assertion made by the mayor
in defense of his action at the Monday
night meeting of the council. In
plain words he comedies that the ordi-
nance will be successfully ultimately.
If the mayor had had hopes Of winning
the hight, though his policies are at
present opposed by the majority of the
council, he might have been justified
in his conduct Bat when he realizes
that he is fighting in vain, he would
show the proper spirit by bringing the
matter to close as soon as possible by
capitulating or compromising.