Norwich bulletin., 1915-07-27
JUDGE MAKES INJUNCTIONS HOLD
Denies Motions Dissolve New London Fire Apparatus
case-Judse Greene Says Advertisements for Appro-
priation Were Not Spechic-He Points Out the APP
parent Intent Of the New London City Charter.

I In compliance with the charter re-
4 qutrements to advertise the recon-
mendations of the court Of common
council. small folder was circulated
before the annual city meeting OF 1914,
containing q list OF appropriation
recommended by the finance COMMITTEES
| for 1el4-191S@ The recommendations
for the fire department. gave no light
as TO how the sum recommended was
/ to be divided. Il read thus: general
expenses, repairs. equipment, 1919
II, s18,Se0; 1sl4-1916. S26y30o.
The recommendation OF the court
Of common council to the annual city
meeting for 1914 for the Gre depart
ment was $4,000. without items; The
annual meeting voted that $4,000 be
appropriated for the FIRE department.
no items being given.
There Is nothing special or specific
about this appropriation, unless II be
held that special appropriation means
prfation to each city department, which
ig an unreasonable Interpretation.
The folder of the finance committee
shows three special divisions OF the
fire department expenses, l. g. gen.
eral expenses, repairs and equipment.
indicating that the court Of common
council had divided the expenses of
the fire department into three special
headings. But their Recommendation
avoids even the moderate degree of
specialization which they had recog-
nized.
Furthermore, the city voters could
not certainly know, without informa-
| ton from the common council, that
any equipment, still less q new en-
CINE, would be needed in 19l4-ls15.
There would always be general ex-
penses and repairs. but there might
| be year when no item of new equip
ment would be required For example,
| in 1909 the evidence shows that the
accommodation covered only salaries,
general expenses and repairs. and
nothing under equipment.
There was nothing therefore in the
recommendation Of the court Of COM
mon council. or in the vote of the
city meeting, making any special APP
preparation for equipment, and SO OF
| course, none for any particular article
| under the head of equipment.
The charter requires special appro-
prfations based on recommendations
This implies special Recommendations
| on which the special appropriations
shall be based The intent of the char
ter appears to be that the intention
of the city voters shall be directed In
reasonable detail to the objects fol-
which the city money shall be spent
They are entitled to more detail thar
| a lump sum for the whole annual ex-
penses OF department. 1t follows
\ that if the court of common council
4 WAoAAO0 ~ AC(OhAAhSA0 Oil
| ton for equipment in the IRE depart
| ment, they should have said so, and
further, if they thought it advisable
| to provide such an expensive item as
a new motor driven fire apparatus
they should have definitely recon-
mended an appropriation for that pur-
pose.
Neither the recommendation Of the
| court of common council nor the vote
OF the annual city meeting is special
as the charter requires, and as there
has been no special appropriation for
the motor driven fire apparatus. there
can be no legal expenditure for It.
There were in evidence the recon-
mendations Of the court of common
council for expenses Of the fire de-
partment, and corresponding appro-
priations by the annual city meetings,
for series of years. ard these clearly
sho what the New London city gov
eminent has understood that the char
ter required special recommendations
and appropriations for special pur-
poses, in the sense indicated in this
memorandum.
The motions to dissolve the injunc-
tons are denied in both cases.