The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1915-12-09
COUNCIL CHEWS
DOG HOUSE"
Lambertville City Fathers Think the
Merchants Should Have No
Say in Public Matters.
THE OTHER ROUTINE BUSINESS

Lambertville's famous hot dog
house, on Coryell street, occupied
an hour of the city councils time
Monday evening, and City Solicitor
Sergeant said that the street COM
mittee was a power unto itself,
readable by no court in the land.
After all the other business had
been disposed of, Mayor Samuel E.
Morse presented the resolution he
had received from the Merchants
Association, asking that the dog
house be Immediately removed. He
stated that if he had to remove it.,
he would get even with the DIRECTORS
to it by requiring the removal of
the Union Fire Company's dog house
that stands in front of their building
Saturday evenings, and every sign
and other article placed upon the
sidewalks by the merchants.
Councilman Clinton B. Oblinger
demanded to know by what right
the Merchants association under
took to run the city, asserting that
when a man is elected to the council
it is his business how the the city is
run, and not that of the Merchants
association or private citizens. He
said that the association was under
taking to NEEDLE in the affairs of
the city, with which it could have
no possible interest.
Acting President of Council Her.
vey S. Holcombe asked Theodore
G. Kitchin member of the Mer-
chants Association, and sponsor for
dog house" resolution, to give his
opinion of the matter. Mr.. Kitchin
explained that the association had
no personal objection to Nicholas
Skiliman, owner of the dog" house
entering business, but that it object
ed to his occupation of public
street in defiance of the law. and
usurping a special privilege possessed
nor desired by no other merchant
of the city. He said that the matter
was brought to the mayors atten-
ton because he was also chief of
police, and supposed to enforce the
laws without the necessity of going
to council He said the association
was acting in the interests of every
property owner and renter in trying
to protect their rights.
Mr.. Hocombe and Mr.. Oblinger
both said that if the dog" house
was in front of their homes they
would soon move it, but they did
not feel that the city fathers could
have any possible interest in the
streets aside from those parts lying
in front of their Individual homes.
City Solicitor Sergeant said that
unless the street committe wished
to remove the building, there was
no way to remove it. He did not
think any property owner or citizen
could secure the removal of a street
obstruction by legal process, and he
felt very sure that there was no
court in the land which could hold
the street committee accountable
for its actions.
Councilman George Banchoff said
the matter should be given to the
mayor and the city solicitor with
instructions to act according to law,
but his motion was not given a
chance, the matter being turned
over to the mayor and city solicitor
with instructions to do nothing.
| 1t is expected that next Monday
nights meeting of the Merchants
Association will be an interesting
affair, and whether the ordinance OF
April 10, 1849, relating to street
Instructions is sought, or whether
other action will be taken will prob
ably be decided then.