Regular Meeting of the City Council Austin Texas June 18, 1900 Hon Geo. A. Newell Mayor presiding Roll Called Present Aldermen Glass and Stumff Absent Aldermen Dunham, Fischer Morris Wortunen + Nolen 2 5 On motion of Alderman Glass the Council adjourned until Friday evening June 22nd 1900 at 8 o'clock PM. Jno. G. Johnson City Clerk --- Page break --- 330 Adjourned Regular meeting of the City Council Austin, Texas, June 2nd 1900 Hon Jno. D. Wullcall Mayor presiding Roll Called Present Aldermen Dunham Fischer Glass Mortimer Nalen and Strumff 6 Absent Alderman Morris 1 On motion of Alderman Mortimer the minutes were approved as recorded by the Clerk without reading Petitions Memorials etc Pet. W. Frankles The Mayor laid before the Council a petition from W. Frankles as Reduce Guardian asking reduction of Assessment for Taxes of 1899 Assessments as fixed by the Board of Equalization - which was read and on Motion referred to the Committee on Claims & accounts Pet. Kingsbury By Alderman Glass - Petition of S.S. Kingsbury asking reduction assessment of Assessment for 1899, as fixed by the Board of Equalization-Read and on Motion referred to the Committee on Claims & accounts. Pet. Odel Durbo By Alderman Glass - Petition of Odel Durbo asking reduction of assessment Assessments as fixed by the Board of Equalization for the year 1899 Read and referred to the Committee on claims & accounts. Pet. Citizens By Alderman Nolen - Petition of Citizens protesting against the protest Market establishment of a Market Square in the Alliances Yard Blocks Square The Petition was read. For J. Fields E.E. Caldwell, A.F. Bull and B.H. Maxwell addressed the Council on behalf of the Petitioners after which it was referred to the Market Committee with instructions to report at the next regular meeting of the Council Pet. C. Steinen By Alderman Dunham Petition of Conrad Steinen asking the Refund penalty Council to refund him the Amount of Tax & penalties paid on his dog - On Motion the Petition was granted R.G. Crosby Alderman Dunham presented a Communication from R.G. Crosby City Pound regarding the moving of the City Pound, which was read and ordered filed City Engineer The Mayor laid before the Council a Communication from the City Dam RR track Engineer regarding the Track of the Austin Dam & Suburban RR which was read and on motion referred to the Street Committee & City Engineer City Engineer to pay $3 Alderman Glass moved that the City Engineer be authorized to per day for teams pay $3.00 per day for hire of teams which motion prevailed Reports of Standing Committees $300. for Grader Alderman Fischer for the Street Committee to whom was referred Com Rep An Ordinance appropriating the sum of $300. to purchase a Grader presented a report recommending that the Mayor and Street Committee advertise to purchase a Street GraderThe report was adopted Com. to whom Alderman Fischer for the Street Committee to whom was E. 7th St. Bridge referred An Ordinance appropriating the sum of $3000. to build a bridge across Waller Creek on E. 7th Street presented a report recommending the passage of the --- Page break --- 331 ordinance, provided the amount stipulated shall include all necessary grading – The report was adopted – Alderman Kircher for the Street Committee to whom was referred the petition of Mr. W. W. Snipe asking that he be refunded certain sums of money paid out by him for repairing Streets and bridges in Hy de Palo, presented a report recommending that the petition be granted – The report was adopted. The Mayor laid before the Council the reports of the Fire Commissions upon the applications of the following named persons for permits to erect certain buildings within the fire limits, recommending that the permits be granted; Viz E. P. Pradine, P. B. Weyen, W. E. Ellis & Anderson & Caldwell – On the application of Robt. Kirby for permission to erect four wooden buildings within the fire limits, they referred the petition back to the Council for its action, without any recommendation from the Commission – On motion the reports of the Commission was adopted except as to the petition of Robt. Kirby, which was referred to them with instructions to report on same, either for or against granting the petition. The Mayor laid before the Council the following opinion of the City Attorney which was read and on motion ordered filed. Austin Texas June 18, 1904 To the Honorable, The Mayor and City Council of the City of Austin; Gentlemen; In response to the question submitted to me by your body, as to whether or not the Mayor of the City, has the legal right to nominate for the offices of Water and Light Commissioners persons whose names have been once submitted to the Council for election to these positions and who have been rejected by the Council, I have to state, that in my opinion, the question should be answered in the affirmative. Section 102, of the City Charter provides that these officials shall, until the next regular City election, be elected by the Council, upon the nomination of the Mayor. My reasons for the conclusion reached as to the proper construction of this provision, are briefly stated as follows; Viz; It is a well settled by common decisions, similar to that under discussion, provisions similar to that under discussion, that an officer entrusted with the duty of making the nomination shall in for a second or any subsequent time the name of a person who has been previously rejected by the electing body, and as such nominee, upon second or subsequent nomination, receives the requisite number of votes, he becomes the legal incumbent of the office! And to prove a statesman as Andrew Jackson, himself, did not scruple to take advantage of this rule of law in order to secure the confirmation of a nominee for the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. --- Page break --- 882 2 No Court, so far as I am able to ascertain, has ever decided, or been called upon to decide, whether or not the nominating officer has the legal Right under such circumstances to send in for a second or subsequent time the name of a person who has been previously rejected. Probably, the reason for this lack of Court decisions on the subject can be accounted for by the fact that no Contest between rival Claimants for office can arise under such circumstances. If the Nominee, who has been previously been rejected by the electing body, at length receives the requisite number of votes, he becomes the legal incumbent of the office. If the electing body continues to reject the nomination, he never becomes the legal incumbent. In neither contingency does the question of the right of the nominating officer to send in the same nomination more than once, become a material question to the nominee; and a purely Platonic love for the solution of abstract questions of law, divorced from every prospect of securing official position or emolument as the result of the Contest, has heretofore Not proven itself a sufficient incentive to impel litigants to put in motion the machinery of the Courts with the object of obtaining a judicial solution of the question. The only method by which the question, of the Right of the nominating officer to send in for a second or subsequent time the name of a rejected Nominee, could be brought before the Courts, would be a mandamus proceeding, or other analagous proceeding, by the electing body to Compel the nominating officer to send in a different Nomination. If such a proceeding were instituted, the Courts would probably hold that the duty to send in a new Nomination was that of such a purely ministerial character as to warrant its enforcement through the medium of a writ of mandamus. While there is an absence of Court decisions upon the question propounded, there exist legislative construction of similar Constitutional and Charter provisions which sustains the View above expressed. Until recently, the Charter of the City of Galveston contained provision for the election of certain City officers by the Council upon the nomination of the Mayor. While this provision was in force, the Mayor of the City repeatedly nominated the same various City officers who had been rejected by the Council for the same offices upon previous nominations by him. The right of the Mayor to pursue this course was Not contested in the Courts! But the --- Page break --- legislature, upon consideration of the subject, finally amended the Galveston Charter so as to prohibit the Mayor from sending in the name of the same person more than three times for the same office. This action would indicate the legislative opinion to be that in the absence of express legislative restrictions, the question of how many times the same person may be nominated, is one addressed to the discretion of the nominating officer. Besides the Amendment to the Charter of the City of Galveston above mentioned, there are various constitutional provisions in the Constitutions of other states, as well as charter provisions in the charters of other Cities, indicating the same legislative opinion by expressly limiting the number of times that the same nomination may be made. Respectfully, V.L. Brooks City Attorney Unfinished Business The Mayor laid before the Council the following Ulewaye Mayor’s Office, Austin, Texas, June 9th 1900. To the Honorable City Council: Gentlemen: I herewith return without my Mayor's veto approval the report of the Special Committee on appeals and Rep. Comm on the order of the Council concerning the same, passed by your appeals honorable body on June 6th 1900. for the following reasons: The law says that taxation shall be equal and uniform. To allow these appeals to pass as a whole would be an injustice to others tax payers of the City. The Valuations in many of these appeals are much less than that of surrounding property. Some of the appeals are meritorious, and should pass, and if they are presented in such a way that each appeal will stand on its own merits they will be so considered. Respectfully, Good Will Calls Mayor Alderman Dunham moved that the Ulewaye lie on the table subject to Call, which motion prevailed. appeal of Alderman Dunham moved to take up the appeal of the aw & Power Co Austin Water, Light & Power Co, which motion prevailed. taxes 1899 Alderman Dunham moved that the appeal be not sustained not sustained which motion prevailed and the Clerk was directed to Notify the Assessor & Collector of this action of the Council. New Business Alderman Fischer offered the following resolution which was read and adopted. “Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Austin: That the City Engineer is here is authorized to expend the balance --- Page break --- 334 City Engineer of an appropriation made by an ordinance entitled, An authorized to expend ordinance appropriating the sum of $600-- for building a bal. of apppr. for bridge across Little Shoal Creek, said balance being $180-- that W 11th St Said balance be expended in grading & filling on said bridge on 11th Street. $30. for Contingent By Alderman Nolan An ordinance appropriating the sum Fund Police Dept of $30. To provide a Contingent fund for the benefit of the Police Dept The ordinance was passed under suspension of the rules by the following Vote Yeas Aldermen Dunham, Glass, Fischer, Mortimer, Nolan & Stumpf Nays None 6 $350. to repair By Alderman Nolan An ordinance appropriating the sum approach to Colorado of $350.⁰⁰ to pay part of the cost of repairing the Southwestern bridge approach to the Colorado bridge at the foot of Congress avenue The ordinance was passed under suspension of the rules by the following Vote Yeas Aldermen Dunham, Fischer, Glass, Mortimer, Nolan & Stumpf Nays None. 6 The Mayor laid before the Council the following Communication from the Water Light Commission, which were read and on Motion referred to the Finance Committee Austin, Texas, June 18th 1900 To the Honorable City Council; Gentlemen: I beg herewith to quote you W & L Commission a resolution from the minutes of the meeting of the Commission fixing rate for passed June 14th 1900, as follows: "On Motion duly arc lamps seconded and carried the Secretary was instructed to advise the City Council that the rates for Arc lamps to private Consumers have been fixed at $75.00 each per year, and to the City at $75.00 each per year." Respectfully, Geo. W. Downs Secretary, Water, Light & Power Commission Austin, Texas June 18th 1900 W & L Commission To the Honorable City Council, request to City City of Austin. to advance $10.000 Gentlemen: on W & L Herewith I beg to transmit to you a resolution passed by the Commission at its meeting June 14th 1900, as follows: "On Motion duly seconded and carried the City Council was requested to advance the Commission the sum of $10 000. on account of Water Light and Power -- Respectfully Geo. W. Downs Secretary, Water, Light & Power Commission --- Page break --- 335 $2500. bridge By Alderman Fischer An ordinance appropriating the sum of W 12th street $2500. to build a bridge across Shoal Creek on W 12th street. Creek The ordinance was passed under suspension of the rules by the following Vote: Yeas Aldermen Dunham Fischer Glass Mortimer + Nolen 5 Nays Alderman Stumff 1 Dog ord By Alderman Dunham An ordinance amending an ordinance Amended regulating the running at large of dogs etc. The ordinance was passed under suspension of the rules by the following Vote Yeas Aldermen Dunham Fischer Glass Mortimer Nolen 5 Stumff 1 Nays None $2180. bridge By Alderman Glass An ordinance appropriating the sum of Waller Cr E 5th St $2180. to build an arch & culvert bridge across Waller Creek on E 5th street. The ordinance was passed under suspension of the rules by the following Vote: Yeas Aldermen Dunham Fischer Glass Mortimer Nolan 5 Nays Alderman Stumff 1 Alderman Glass offered the following resolution which was read and adopted. Auditors to "Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Austin! audit books That a Committee of two citizens of Austin qualified for City officers the duties shall be created by the Council for the purpose of Auditing the books of all several departments of the City government. The Compensation to each of said Committee to be five dollars per day - not to exceed 30 days time." $3200. Macadam St By Alderman Fischer An ordinance appropriating the sum of $3200. for the purpose of purchasing a Macadam Road Roller. The ordinance was read the first time and on motion the rules were suspended and the ordinance placed on its second reading by the following Vote Yeas Aldermen Dunham Fischer Glass Mortimer + Nolen 5 Nays Alderman Stumff 1 The ordinance was then read a second time and on motion was laid on the table subject to call. Alderman Fischer offered the following resolution which was read and adopted. St Com to advertise "Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Austin! for bids bridge That the Street Committee be hereby authorized to advertise for W. 12th St. bids for a bridge on Shoal Creek at the intersection of W. 12th Street." $3000. bridge By Alderman Mortimer Called up the ordinance appropriating E 7th St Waller Cr the sum of $3000. to build a bridge across Waller Creek on S. C. R. E 7th Street. together with the report of the Street Committee thereon. The ordinance was read the first time and a motion was made to suspend the rule and place the ordinance on its second reading which motion prevailed by the following Vote Yeas Aldermen Dunham Fischer Glass Mortimer + Nolen 5 Nays Alderman Stumff 1 6 --- Page break --- 336 The ordinance was then read the second Time Alderman Glass moved to amend the ordinance by striking out section 2. which motion prevailed and the ordinance was passed under suspension of the rule by the following Vote Yeas Alderman Dunham, Fischer, Glass, Mortimen & Nolan 5 Nays Alderman Stumpff 1 Extending time to By Alderman Glass An Ordinance extending the Time for Oct 1, 1900 to pay the payment of taxes for the year 1899 until October 1st, 1900 Taxes 1898 and providing that no penalty accrue against any person who shall pay his taxes before that date. The ordinance was passed under suspension of the rules by the following Vote Yeas Alderman Dunham, Fischer, Glass, Mortimen & Stumpff 5 Nays Alderman Nolan 1 Bids for bonds for The Mayor read to the Council letters & telegrams from parties Sinking fund proposing the sale of bonds for the sinking fund of the old bonds. On motion the matter was laid over until the next regular meeting of the Council Alderman Glass moved to take up the Veto of the Mayor Mayors Veto Vetoing the report of the special Committee on appeals, which appeals. Motion prevailed. Alderman Glass then moved to reconsider Veto overruled the Vote by which the report was adopted which motion prevailed. Alderman Glass then moved that the report be adopted notwithstanding the Mayors objections which motion prevailed by the following Vote Yeas Alderman Dunham, Fischer, Glass, Mortimen & Nolan 5 Nays Alderman Stumpff 1 On Motion the Council adjourned Geo. D. Johnson City Clerk