White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1921-07-17
COUNCIL AND MAYOR IN SEEsAW;
UNABLE TO AGREE ON OFFICERS

The hot weather OF Monday eve
ming was augmented by some hot
argument at the regular meeting of
the city council The amount of
business transacted was not extraor-
dinarily large, but was attended with
an unusual amount of discussion.
Collection of city licenses. city sexton .
and salary of the deputy city mar
shal were among the principal sub
jects which stimulated argument and
Cratory.
In the matter or the licenses the
liong-standing deadlock between the
mayor and the council relative to the
city marshalship loomed large for
few minutes. when by concerted ac-
tion Councilman Mcknight and
Councilman Russell endeavored TO
put the rollers under City Marshal
Mcorman and slide him into the dis
card. But in this instance. as In 9th
ers which have passed into municipal
history. Mayor Gallagher stood stead
fast in opposition and acting in his
executive capacity successfully coun-
tered the efforts of the councilmen to
GUST "Bill" from the marshalship.
The argument started with the
presentation of trio of applications
|
| knight was prompted to inquire of
the city attorney the penalty named
in case the marshal fails to collect O
license after having his attention
called to the delinquency. The city
attorney read the ordinance, which
in such case provides dismissal from
Office
Councilman Mcknight then moved
that City Marshal Moorman be re-
moved from Office and the motion was
seconded by Councilman Russell
Mayor Gallagher declined to enter
tain the motion. giving as his reason
| lack of evidence TO show that the
city marshal had been delinquent In
this particular line of duty.
Nothing daunted. Councilman Nc
Knight agreed to furnish the evil
dence and mentioned Happy Charles
Hope as one who could testify as to
the evidence required. This failed to
shake the mayor in his position. who
continued to decline to entertain the
motion on the further ground that all
this had transpired before the pres
ent city administration came into
office.
! Councilman Mcknight countered
this by saying that the license under
discussion and alleged to have been
uncollected was for a period from
January l. 1921. to July l. 1921. and
he inquired OF the mayor IL the pres
ent councilmen were not holding Of
fee during the month OF June of the
present year.
This question failed to jostle the
mayor OFF bis stand and the chief eY-
ecutive met the situation by saying
that RS this license was due and col
lectable before the present city ad-
ministration came into Office the mat
! ter did not properly come under ths
jurisdiction OF the present city faith
ers. therefore he refused finally to en-
tertain the motion as presented by
Councilman Mcknight and seconded
by Councilman Russell
The discussion relative to the sal
ary of the deputy city marshal was
led by Councilman Mcknight Once
upon time there was famous play
in which a clever character artist al
ways got laugh from the audience
by his reiterated ridiculous state
ments followed by the assertion, 81
could prove ii. too. If old Bill Jones
was alive.
This is no reflection on the present
honorable councilmen. bur merely
emphasizes the fact that Councilman
Mcknight did not need any old Bill
Jones to prove the correctness of his
claims. because his colleague. Coun-
Gilman Russell. was ever at hand and
ready to stand by in corroboration.
AS in the uncollected license dis
cussion, so also in the deputy mar
shalship. salary discussion Council
man Russell backed up the allega-
tions of Councilman Mcknight.
Councilman Mcknight led the
meeting to beIieye that when he had
asked the city attorney about ths
salary of the deputy city marshal, as
provided by ordinance, the city at
torney had informed him that the
salary was S165 per month. Mr.. Nc
Knight inquired of Mr.. Lockhart IL hs
had not so informed him and was
answered by Mr. Lockhart that he
| tLockhart) had informed the coun-
ell that the salary inquired about was
$3.50. Mr. Mcknight insisted on
thinking otherwise, and in his opin.
ion he was backed up by Mr.. Russell.
who also had gained the impression
that the city attorney had informed
the council that the salary in ques-
tion was Sl65.
The city attorney then explained
his side of the case by saying that ha
had relied on his memory in making
his first statement. but that he had
checked up by reading the ordinance
and notified the council that the sal
airy was specified at $3.50.
II appears that while the ordinance
names $3.50 the salary has for some
time been sl65. as provided by a res.
olution passed and adopted by the
former council adding SIS per month
10 the salary. and this resolution,
which may have been a high-cost-of.
living measure, slid along from the
past to the present administration.
until its swelled proportions were ar
gued upon at Monday nights meet
ing.
In the discussion about the city
sexton the initiative was taken by
Councilman Russell. backed up by
councilman Mcknight. The main
idea was to dig a hole and bury the