Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-07-10
MAYOR JACKSON
VET0ES TAX LEVY
Questions Legality of Resolu.
tiOns Which Make Aggregate
Rate in Excess of Charter
Limit of 200 Cents
EXPENSE BILL VETOED
City Engineer Reports Tint Several
New Bridges or Immediate Repairs
Are Necessary-salaries Of Omcials
Are Fixed

Eight aldermen. Mayor j. Holmes
jackson and City Attorney Theodore Il.
Hopkins were the steler characters Mon
day in the spicest session of the city's
governing body, the board Of aldermen,
held for several years during which
Alderman Edward cambridge accused
the mayor of playing petty, personal
politics when he returned without his
approval Of the bill for s677l7 presented
by the Burlington men who were foster
ing the proposed barge terminal for
Burlington, on the ground that the
money was spent without the approval
of the board Of finance. The mayor also
returned without his signature on the
resolution providing for the levying of
two separate taxes, one Of 40 cents on
the dollar of the grand list to pay the
citys share of the State tax and the
other levying an assessment of 81 30 on
the dollar of the grand list to meet the
expenses of the city, on the ground that
it was establishing a bad precedent
The aldermen, however voted to sustain
the vetoes of the mayor
The bill of s67717 as presented by the
committee in charge Of the fostering of
the barge terminal with r. NJ. McCauley
as chairman, was for expenses incurred
during the canvass about the State to
work up interest in the terminal. Each
item in the bill was accompanied by a
voucher. but the bill was not approved
by the finance committee. for the rea-
son. SO the mayors message stated.
that the resolution appropriating $1,000
for furthering the project called for the
money to pass through the hands of the
finance committee, whereas the terminal
workers paid the money out of their
own pockets and then submitted the bill
and the vouchers to get back their ex-
pense money.
Alderman Hall was the first to speak
on this subject and he urged that the
veto be not sustained While admit
ting that the mayor was technically
right. he said that the members of the
terminal commission understood that
the money would be paid back to them
and that they did not understand that
the finance committee would have to
handle the money and disburse it from
time to time to the terminal commits
sion as needed. Alderman Hanbridg e
then said that the terminal commits
sion members had paid the money out
of their own pockets and that the
board of aldermen had given the mem
bers to understand that the city would
back them to the extent of $1,000 and
that he did not think 1t was fair tc
the members to withhold their money.
He accused the mayor of playing
petty. personal politics in the matter
and advanced the opinion that it was
a pretty small piece of business tc
thrown down the Chamber of Com.
in, no
had worked for the best interests OF
! the city. The mayor denied that he
refused to sign the warrant for the
payment of the bill because of persona
| politics but that 1t was a matter of city
| business to protect the city's finance.
| and that he was going to do so as Ions
| as he was in office, no matter who wa.
| affected, how or when, and that hi
did not care whether anybody likec
II or not
After a liberal discussion, in which
all of the aldermen participated, it wa.
finally decided that the terminal com
mission members should go before tn,
| finance committee, explain the items II
the bill, and the mayor said that h,
would consider the bill again. TIL,
motion was made to sustain the vett
of the mayor by Alderman Dwyer
seconded by Alderman Bergeron. an,
the yea and nay vote on the matte
as recorded was: To sustain the veto
Woodbury., Caise Bergeron, Dwyer an,
Hall: to overrule the veto, Mcbride
Deyette and Hanbridge
THE TAX LEVY
| The next important feature to com
up for discussion was the second vet
Iof the mayor. which was on the ia,
resolution passed at a previous meet
ing of the board. The mayors vet
message said that the resolution es
tablished a dangerous precedent an
that under the charter the act was no
legal
City Attorney Hopkins after the vet
message was read, charged the mayo
with leaving out the last clause in sec
ton 80 OF the city charter which con
tains wording to the effect that the cit
taxes of 200 cents on the dollar may b
levied, but not TO include the schoc
taxes, He asserted that city official
had camouhaged the provisions of tn
city charter long enough and said tina
it was time the citizens knew what tn
real powers Of the board of alderme
were, The city charter provides, so h
stated, that the city can raise Stat
taxes above the 200 cents on the dolla
used for city financing. The city attor
ney said that he had given the mayor
at the latter's request an opinion on tn
action of the aldermen on the tax aues
ton which the mayor later vetoed, br
that he did not know at the time c
giving it that the mayor was going
|, leave out the important part when
was re-quoted.
Alderman Hall then read section Sc {
the city charter and then the next SCI
, ton, arguing that the board of aide,
! men acted fully within their rights whe
, they levied the two separate tax asses,
ments, and his argument was supporte
by the city attorney Alderman Gals
asserted that there were a great man
, tax dodgers in Burlington and that
the veto was not sustained the burde
would fall on the poor property owner
and not the ones who could afford to pa
the increased prices He charged III
n assessors with differentiation of man
8 business properties, saying that the
s were taxed only about 10 per cent
what they would bring in the real esta
market to-day.
e Alderman Caise moved to sustain II
p veto of the mayor and the motion W;
t seconded by Alderman Bergeron. In
e yea and nay vote the veto was sustaine
|. The following voted fo- sustaining II
= Veto: Messrs, Caise, Bergeron ar
u Dryer. Those voting against sustainir
OF the veto We're Messrs. Mcbride. Woo,
bury, Deyette, Hanbridge and Hall.
two-thlrds vote Is necessary to pass
8 resolution over the mayors veto.