New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1918-05-16

Limited, OGDENSBURG, N. Y.
car controversy however, In a some
what lengthy Grafton Councilman Gill
lin told of making a personal investi-
cation Of the White car and said it
could be fixed up at a cost of between
$50 and 500. AS far as he could
learn there was but one thing wrong
and that was q slightweakness of the
compression in one cylinder. He also
declared that the REQ is a cheaper
car and a lighter car and he doubted
If this light chassis would carry the
heavy body of the old White which it
is proposed to use He thought it
possible that the machine might owe.
turn when rounding Il curve. Coun-
Gilman George M. Landers declared
that he thought it a pity to sell the
White car for only $500 and added
that he did not think in this instance
the police commissioners had made a
very profitable deal for the city. AL
derman Richards questioned the
speed and power of the REQ car and
said he feared it would not meet the
requirements and Councilman Steiner
also opposed the REQ car, at the
the White truck ought to be in good
condition yet Police Commission
Virgil Palmer was present and was
asked if the commission had given
other automobile firms a chance to
bid on the police cars. He said that
one or two local dealers had been
given an opportunity for they knew
the city was in the market but at the
same time admitted no request had
been made for bids and no ADVERTISE
ment for bids had been printed. 1t |
was very evident that the council is |
not ready to sanction the police COM |
missions action in this particular |
deal and a further investigation is |
now in progress.
Curtis Scores at Last.
Several months ago Alderman O. T. |
Curtis questioned the validity of q !
veto accepted by the council at the !,
request of the mayor. The alder ]
mans contention was that the char !
ter provides that a veto be returned
to the council at the next meeting. |
whereas it was claimed two meetings /
elapsed before this veto was returned. I
The mayor opposed this contention on !
the ground that he returned the veto I
not his fault if it did not get to the
council. After the matter has laid
dormant for several weeks, Alderman
Curtis brought it up again at the last
council meeting and asked an opinion
OF the corporation counsel which is
herewith printed:
~ on have referred to me the uues-
ton OF the legality of the veto by the !
mayor Of a resolution of the common
council as appearing in item Is of the
minutes of February 20, 1918. IT is
my understanding that this veto was
not returned to the common council
at its next meeting, but on the third
meeting after the original resolution
was passed
Thc charter provides that if the
mayor snail d1sapprove of a resolu-
ton of the council the same shall be
returned to the common council at
its next meeting, whether an ad
journed, regular, or a special meet
ing, with the objection thereto in
writing. Under the circumstances
therefore, the mayors veto was of no
validity.
1.-THE next question is how to
out the tangle 1t would
seem to me that the best way to do
this was not by a correction of the
of the meeting which rep
resent the actions actually taken BY
the council, but rather by new reso-
luton to be passed by the council, as
follows:
Resolved, Whereas. the common
council, at its meeting held on Feb.
ruary 20, 1918, sustained the mayors
veto OF resolution passed on Janu-
airy 10, 1918, relating to the payment
of salaries by the board of public
charities and,
Whereas, it appears that said veto
was void as not having been returned
to the common council at its next
as provided by charter.
Resolved, The city clerk be in
structed to note that the action of
the, common council in sustaining said
veto was also void and that the reso-
luton, document No. 80, passed by
the common council at it's meeting on
January 16, 1918, is in full force and
effect
IF now, the common council as
indicated by it's former action in at
tempting to sustain the mayors veto, |
should desire that said resolution
should not stand, then I suggest the
passage of the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the action of the
common council taken at it's meet
ing on January 16, 1918, relating to
document No. 80 concerning the paw
ment of salaries by the board of pub /
lie charities, be and is hereby re-
scinded.'"
Mayor Quigley Immediately took
the floor and said he would oppose I
ioin Of bo -,