The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1913-08-02
Case Argued by Attorneys Before
Judge Bailey Friday and The
Testimony Of City Off.
cers is Taken
VALIDITY MAYORS
VETO is INVOLVED
Decisions Fail to Touch Directly on
the Oklahoma Statute and
Court Must Figure Out
the Puzzle

Raising legal questions on which the
decisions shed little direct light, Attor-
neys Alger Melton. r. ID. Welborne and
Harry Hamnerly presented arguments
to Judge Bailey Friday afternoon on
theicase involving the validity Of the
city cleaning contract
One Of the main points involved was
the right OF the mayor to veto a reso-
lution passed BY the city council Mr..
Welborne contended that such a right
existed and Nr, Melton denied it. Ap-
parenty this point has never been de-
cided In case involving the Oklahoma
statute The law specifically author
izes the exercise Of the veto power in
the case o. an ordinance but is silent
ON 1t as to resolutions. Authorities
We're presented by the lawyers bear
ing on both sides Of this question and
also on several other points that were
raised The court took the case under
adylssment,
Mayor Burton. w II. Burgess, city
clerk r. J Driggers. Geo. Petty G. G.
Goetting, I'd Evans and ] L. Carter
oounclmen, we're called % the witness
stand ana piled with question: BY tht
lawyers lelIlng the story Of the letting
Of enc cleaning contract Of the veto
by the mayor Of Gnffin's contract and
the Subsequent letting Of the contract
to M j. Marshall al figure Of sll0y
per year
~ r. Burgess was called to the
stand first and answering questions by
Attorney Welborn he stated that he
was city clerk Of the city Of Chicka
sha. that On June 10, ia regular meet
ing OF The city council a motion 10 ad
yeriise for bids for the alley cleaning
contract carried, and that such bids
we're advertised for
That On June 80 at the next council
meet The bids were opened and read
and that after some discussion tn,
contract vas awarded 70 " A. Grit
lin al figure OF s2loe per year Wit
ness stated that on July 8 another
meeting was called at which time Tx
mayor vetoed the former action o
the council in awarding the contrac
10 Mr. Griffin aud a motion TO awar,
the contract to NJ J. Marshall at siiOl
per year was made and seconded. Th'
vote Of the council was tied on thl
proposition and Mayor Burton cast thl
deciding vote in favor Of the motion
thus awarding the contract to Mar
shall Witness stated that a motiol
was then made by NIT Petty and sec
onced By Mr. Harbour notifying MI
Marshal to 20 to work immediatel
and that Griffin be notified that tn
contract had been awarded to Man
shal.
Mayor Burton was then called I
the stand and when asked what dis
cussion was entered into at the tim
the contract was Jet regarding the se'
eral applicants, he stated that severa
Of the councilmen had expressed thei
views in favor OF Mr.. Griffin, sayin
that he was fully equipped to do th
work was doing the work and shoul
have the contract again, but that tn
qualifications OF the other applicant
were not considered, except by N
Petty IN remarks concerning the appl
cation OF Green Bros, whom he recon
mended as thoroughly reliable and r
sponsible parties and Just as we
equipped 10 handle the work as al
other Witness said he vetoed the q
ton Of the council IN awarding q
contract to Mr.. Griffin.
Mr. Goetting was called to the stan
and stated that he was a member
the city council aud was present VIII
the contract was awarded to Mr., Grl
fin When asked why he voted
award the contract to Mr.. Griffin VIII
other bids We're lower, witness stat
that Mr. Griffin had handled the Ct
Tract for year, had made good, h
gone to considerable expense TO
semble wagons and teams for the wo
aud he Thought be was entitled to