New Britain herald., 1915-09-16
CURTIS BLOCKED IN NEW PROBE ATTEMPT Third Warder Wants lnvesti6a-
 tion Of Document "Mutilation"
 COUNCIL LOYAL TO MAYOR

| 1 Vote by 19 % G-Vetoes Subm1tsfsi 1 at Last Meeting Upheld in Report l of Special Committee.
 l Councilman o. F. Curtis attempted to set another common cOuncll IlVes- l tigation on foot last night at the l sentember meeting when he intro 1 dnced a resolution asking for probe 1 by q snecial committee of an alleged i nublic document, part of which had been crossed off. He claims that the marking was done by Mayor George ] A. Quigley but his efforts went for naught as he was beaten on a yea and nay vote, 19 to 6 | At the August meeting of the com l mon council, Councilman Curtis first called the attention of the members to the alleged mutilation of document, claiming that Mayor Quigley had with his own hand crossed off section after it had passed the council. The paper in question was a motion made by Councilman Dolan and vetoed by the mayor. This veto, with second veto, was referred to a special com mittee of three, consisting of Alder man Anderson and Councilman Teich and Conlon The committee report ed last night, upholding the mayors ruling, which was the point on which one of the vetoes had been made. Councilman Curtis expressed the opinion that the committee had not gone far enough and that it should have investigated the crossing off of a section of Councilman Dolan's mo- ton. A motion was made to accept the report of the committee and Councilman Curtis offered the follow ing mendment: .a..-.
 Resolved: That the report of the committee on the mayors veto of Resolution No. 49 of the July 18th meeting and the changing of the language of said resolution by cross ing off parts of it be and is referred back to said committee and they are hereby instructed to give at least forty-eight hours notice of and to give 1 a hearing to all parties concerned or connected with such resolution or con- l troversy, which shall be open to the reporters and the public after which l they shall report their recomme enda- | tion or finding to the next following l council meeting.
 ] After considerable debate, Council | l and the report of the committee was l accepted. -, The report was, as fol- 1 lows: .~-. .... 1 To His Honor, the Mayor, and the ., ? Common Council of the City of l . New Britain: .~.3. ... y Your committee appointed to- in- vestigate the mayors vetoes present l ed at the August meeting of the com- mon council together with the reso- 1 luton presented by Councilman Cur I tis. beg leave to submit the follow 1 ing report:
 l The first matter taken up by your \ committee, was the veto of his honor l the mayor regarding itep No. AZ of 1 the minutes of the meeting of the l common council of July 21st, 1915. l We find that the phraseology of 1 the resolution is ambiguous and in the opinion of the committee the veto should be sustained.
 The next matter taken up was the l resolution of Councilman Curtis con- corning the veto by his honor the l mayor of the action taken by the
 common council in resinding the vote taken June 18th, 1915, relating to
 item No. 73, said vote was taken by
 your honorable, body July 21st 1915.
 Article 16 of the rules of the com
 mon counciI states that questions
 arising on parliamentary ruling not
 covered by these rules shall be de- cided by the presiding officer in &C.,
 cordance with "Cushings Manuel"
 Your committee find that the action
 taken by your honorable body in res- ] cinding 8 vote to indefinitely post
 pone was not according to "Cushings
 Manuel of parliamentary law.
 Sec Art. 67 Cushings Manuel on indefinite postponement reads as fol-
 lows:
 In order to suppress question
 altogether, without coming to a d1-
 rect vote upon it, in such a manner
 that it cannot be renewed, the proper
 motion is for indefinite postponement,
 that is, a postponement or adjourn
 ment of the question without fixing
 any day for resuming it.
 The effect of this motion, if de-
 cided in the affirmative, is to quash
 the proposition entirely; an in-
 definite adjournme ent is equivalent to
 a dissolution or the continuance of
 a suit without day, is a discontinu-
 ance of it.
 A negative decision has no effect
 whatever.
 (This motion cannot be amended
 It cannot be moved while the m otions
 to commit or for the previous ques-
 ton are pending. As its effect is
 to quash the proposition entirely, it | necessarily brings up the whole sub
 ject for discussion, in order that it's
 friend may allege reasons for com
 ing to a direct vote upon it, for if
 the motion to indefinitely postpone
 prevails the measure proposed can-