Press enter after choosing selection

Council Does Not Approve Of A Pooh=bah City Attorney

Council Does Not Approve Of A Pooh=bah City Attorney image
Parent Issue
Day
20
Month
March
Year
1903
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

COUNCIL DOES NOT APPROVE OF A POOH=BAH CITY ATTORNEY

An Extremely Sarcastic Report of a Special Council Committee

Which Hit the Nail on the Head - Mr. Sawyer Vigorously Defended His Acting as City Attorney and Railroad Attorney

It seems to be Pooh Bah Sawyer. Ald. Douglas at Monday night's council meeting read the following report of a special committee.

"Your committee to whom was referred the resolution of Alderman Schumacher in reference to the differences between the Ann Arbor Railroad and their customers having side track privileges, beg to report that they visited Mr. Richards, the engineer of the railroad, who referred us to the railroad's attorney, Mr. A.J. Sawyer. The committee then consulted with City Attorney Andrew J. Sawyer, who, after consulting with the railroad attorney, advised was without their province, to which we agreed.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry W. Douglas,

Emmet Coon."

City Attorney Sawyer jumped to his feet to defend himself. "I see," he said, "that that report is very amusing to somebody. I don't know why, as I have been writing a resolution. But the city of Ann Arbor passed an ordinance by which the city granted the Ann Arbor Railroad a franchise to elevate its tracks and cause grade separation over five or six streets of Ann Arbor. I suppose the council do not intend to make boys or fools of themselves. Some one sitting at this table at the last meting passed a resolution over to Ald. Schumacher by which this committee was appointed. [The resolution was in Ald. Schumacher's handwriting. The reporter of this paper at the last meeting looked at it for the purpose of seeing whose resolution it was.]

That ordinance was passed, properly published and accepted. That ordinance has become a contract binding on this city, and it is boy's play to talk about it.

"In order to put through the work just what has been done would have to be done sooner or later. You cannot have forgotten that there were gentlemen here who stated that their property was being jeopardized and making threats. The railroad company knew perfectly well of these threats. It became a question as to whether or not the franchise had been properly granted. They decided and, in my judgment very properly, that these men ought to have an opportunity to settle this question and so committed the injury complained of. The questions are now in the court. It is the interest of this city to have these questions settled.

"As representing both the city and the railroad company, because their interests are the same, I have appeared in these cases. If I have done wrong, correct me."

Ald. Koch said the question had been on everybody's lips if it were true that our city attorney was also the railroad's attorney. He wanted to know if the city attorney could do justice to the city, while being attorney for the railroad.

City Attorney Sawyer claimed there was no conflict. "I say," he shouted "whenever this city attempts to enforce its ordinances, I am discharging my duties as city attorney. I am the attorney of any other man who sees fit to employ me when it does not conflict with the city's interest."

The report was accepted by a vote of the council.

Ald. Koch wanted to know if it was not necessary that a hearing of the property holders he had in closing a street and if there must not be a vote of two-thirds of the council.

Atty. Sawyer agreed that this was so, but claimed that this was yet to be done by the city.

Later in the meeting Ald. Schlenker introduced a resolution diverting First street through the property of M Fritz and appointing a hearing on March 30. This was the same resolution which had been passed for a hearing yesterday, but of which proper notice had not been given.

Ald. Coon moved to refer the resolution to the street committee and the city engineer to see what the land desired could be purchased for, but after some discussion withdrew the motion to refer. Ald. Douglas immediately renewed it. It was voted down.

Ald. Hamilton wanted to know if by passing this resolution the council would not be violating the injunction issued but the circuit court.

City Attorney Sawyer: "No, you would not."

The resolution was then passed, Ald. Douglas voting No.