The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-11-03
CONSOLIDATION ORDINANCE
PASSED OVER MAYORS VETO
Hooker Again city Engineer,
But Scope Of Duties Would
Puzzle Philadelphia Lawyer

| Complications in control of the wat
er department We're rendered still
more acute by several actions taken
in the city council last night The
situation may be summed up some
thing like this:
Council passed an ordinance con
lsolidating the engineering and water
| departments: the mayor vetoed the
ordinance, claiming it to be lacking
conformity to the statues; council
passed the ordinance over the mayor
veto.
The mayor appointed Mike Cassidy
water commissioner, taking effect
October / council refused to confirm;
Cassidy was given a recess appoint
ment and he took charge w. ).
Spencer had resigned, ana is said to
have no authority Of any sort.
r. b. Hooker, city engineer, resign
ed at the time the consolidation ordi-
nance was passed leaving two de.
partments without heads; council
accepted the resignation Now comes
Hooker with withdrawal Of the res
ignation which council entertained
The record was eXpunged and the
mayor re-appointed Hooker city eli
gineer, and the appointment was con-
firmed
Many Tangled Questions
Has the city OF Guthrie a water de
partment? If so who is commission
er?
Is Hooker commissioner and city
engineer or is he merely city en-
gineer?
Is Cassidy the commissioner? Is
Spencer? Is Hooker
Have the departments been consoll-
dated? Has the water department
been abolished?
Does anybody know anything?
The affair will probably come to an
issue pretty soon.
Who is Going To own Plant?
There is further complication
over the impending purchase of the
pumping plant at the water station.
Under contracts with the light and
power company the city is undertak- |
ing to take over the plant, and II
encounters the determined opposi |
tion of the company The company
the purchase on original cost, claim
ing that the plant must be taken at
its present value, without going be-
hind the returns. Law suits are
probable.
Statutes and Ordinances
Mayor Olsmith last night submitted
nis veto OF the consolidation ordi !
nance, holding that it in not in com
pliance with the state law He says |
cities of this class have the right to
put the city engineer in control oi
the water department. council reserY- |
ing the duty of filing the minor plac- |
es The mayor claims that in this IN
stance the statute was ignored, |
council undertaking to abolish two
Offices and creating a new one, CIV
ing the new officer appointive power
not allowed by law. He says that the
could have bee neffected un-
der the statute by transferring the
water department to the engineer
council providing for minor officers,
The right to pass an action over the
veto is not questioned, but
the mayor claims this action will not
be effective because in violation OF
state law.
Council last night passed the ordl-
nance over the mayors veto, taking
effect Immediately The mayor has
not appointed a head for the new de
partment. which he holds council had
no right to create.
E. B. Hooker is holding over as
city engineer. The question is Has
he the right to control of the water
department under his original ap-
pointment. both Offices having been
abolished?
Crow Files Demurrer
Galen Grow. manager of the Guth-
rie Electric Light and Power com
pany. filed a reply to the special com
mittee in charge Of the purchase or
the power plant The committee, con-
sisting OF the mayor. city attorney.
water committee and city engineer,
had reported in favor of taking over
the plant under tAe contracts. on
December !. 1911, and To that end ask
ed that the inventory carry the orig /
inal cost of the plant SO that de |
probation could he figured in arriv- /
ing at the present value.
Mr.. Crow submitted that the con /
tracy provides the procedure and that /
in the procedure the original cost |
does not enter.
After much discussion council lett
the entire matter with the special
Efforts will be made 10