Council Passed The Bills Over The Mayor's Veto

Mayor Copeland sent in a veto Monday to the council of the bills passed at the last council meeting. His veto was dated Feb. 20 and although Information at the clerk's office after that date was that no veto had been filed, the mayor says it was filed on the day it was dated. But that is of no consequence, for the council by a vote of 42 to 0 passed the bills over the veto. The veto message was as follows:

Undoubtedly it was the intention of the Common Council, by its adoption of the Finance Committee's report, to have no warrants drawn until actual funds are on hand to pay the same. Yet there is opportunity for a different interpretation and in order that there may be no question on this score I return with my disapproval those portions of the proceedings which relate to the payment of accounts. I do this because the Treasurer has on hand an insufficient sum of money to pay the trust accounts. After the first of March we will be better prepared to appreciate the condition of our finances and will then, I trust make some provision to pay the current expenses of the city. Respectfully, R. S. Copeland, Mayor.

The mayor also sent in the following message:

Mayor's Office, March 2, 1903.

To the Honorable the Common Council:

Gentlemen - As predicted by the city officials, March finds the account at the bank absolutely exhausted, fourteen thousand dollars in unpaid bills outstanding, paving bonds repudiated and no satisfactory solution in sight.

Our citizens misunderstood the situation and exparte evidence has not added to their good nature. The mayor and other officials of the city are receiving a great deal of censure. Public office being a public trust this is to be expected, but for my part I have the satisfaction of a clear conscience and am undismayed by the storm of general criticism. When our citizens see the situation as it is and not as our critics would have it, I know they will approve. The people are right when they are rightfully and fully informed.

My interpretation of the charter, gained by the advice of as good lawyers as the bar of Michigan possesses, leads me to take the stand that I cannot legally sign warrants on exhausted funds. Because other mayors have done so may be excuse enough for many good people who tell me to do it for that reason, but I have sworn not to do. When I took the oath of my office I swore before God that I would support the laws of the state and the charter of the city, and so long as I know what the laws are I will abide by them in the face of all opposition.

If I am mistaken and my legal advice wrong, if the courts decide adversely, in other words if the law is not as I think it is, then I will readily, cheerfully sign the warrants. Until then I cannot.

Granting there is room for doubt, by the way that is more than our critics have ever done, suppose we have a friendly contest to settle this question for all time. Let the proper legal action be taken to determine whether or not an overdraft is lawful under our charter, whether the mayor and clerk may sign warrants on exhausted funds, whether or not the Common Council has a right to vote money for interests on overdrafts. Let some bill, like that of the Ann Arbor Argus, for instance, be presented to the officials for their signature. Upon their refusal to sign have them taken into court to show cause why they do not.

The city has interest enough in this matter so that it can well afford to pay counsel in prosecuting such a suit, white our own attorney is abundantly able to defend it. Respectfully submitted, R. S. Copeland.

A somewhat extended debate ensued over the mayor's veto message. City Attorney Sawyer was much in evidence, making frequent speeches. Among the remarks that were made were the following:

Ald. Hamilton: I am sure the banks will take these orders without discounting them, if we will agree to pay five per cent interest until we get our money in July.

Ald. Koch: We have got along for years in this way. I don't like to see the papers full of statements that the city is bankrupt. Why do we not let the people who have earned their money have their warrants?

City Attorney Sawyer: Because we have been in, the habit of doing it doesn't make it legal. In all this time you couldn't have collected a dollar of tax if anyone had seen fit to file a bill to enjoin the collection of taxes. [Commended to the attention of those who esteem Mr. Sawyer as a great lawyer.]

Ald. Douglas: I think we have a perfect right to allow these claims. The charter provides that we shall not overdraw the funds in any one year. We are not doing it. There will be plenty of money to pay these claims within the year.

Ald. Clancy: One of the fire commissioners stated to me that if the mayor would sign those orders the firemen would get their pay.

City Attorney Sawyer launched into a long and labored personal attack upon the editor of the Argus, which the latter resented, requesting that Mr. Sawyer be called to order, as he had no more right to talk than the editor had. Mr. Sawyer continued talking until Ald. Clancy insisted that he come to order, when he sat down.

Ald. Hamilton asked if it was the duty of the chairman of the finance committee to collect funds due the city.

Mr. Sawyer said it was the treasurer's duty to collect what is on the assessment roll.

Ald. Schlenker wanted to lay the report of the finance committee over for one month, but this motion was not seconded.

On the question, Shall these bills pass, the mayor's veto notwithstanding? the vote was:

Yeas - Ald. Hamilton, Douglas, Koch. Schlenker, Kearns, Clancy, Schumacher, Johnson, Roberts, Coon, Fischer, Pres. Haarer - 12. Nays - 0.

The finance committee recommended the allowance of bills for the past month, aggregating $2,793.51, including a bill of $286.35 of Lawyer Stivers for defending the Newman case. The bills were allowed.