OCR Text |
Show THE ".ETTV VINDICATED Br xe. coax. In tjie City Council session of last evening the subject of amending amend-ing the ordinance on cemetery was taken in hand. It will be remembered remem-bered that the committes on cemetery ceme-tery offered an amendment to the samo ordinance a few weeks ago. Its object was to increase the maximum maxi-mum price of burial lot from $20 to ;12o, a leap that probably has no precedent in regard to this grave question in any city in the civilized or uncivilized world. The amendment offered at that time also embodied tba condition that the sexton's fee forselliuglots ten per cent of the price remain unchanged. Thus that officer's fee alone on a lot at tho maximum price would amount to moro than the highest price charged for any lot in the cemetery prior to 1SSS. We characterized the proposed increase in-crease of price, the scope of the sexton's sex-ton's discretion in the- matter of charges,and the fees connected with tho proposed new condition as forming form-ing an outrage that had every appearance ap-pearance of jobbery. That opinion remains unchanged. Those who have read the News articles on the subject are aware that the position was sustained by ficts and figures, which have not been refuted, because be-cause they cannot be overturned. Sir. Louis Colin, a member of the committee ou cemetery, took occasion occa-sion last evening to perioral the "baby act." Pointing to cur reporter re-porter iu she Council chamber, cham-ber, as if tho latter were the Xcws, he said this Journal bad slandered the committee commit-tee in treating onthe subject of the Drorxred amendment to the ordinance. ordi-nance. All that wo have done has been to protect the paopla against what we regarded as an inexcusable imposition. And we defy Mr. (John to refute the facts and fig. urea we have presented. We hurl the insinuation back in his teeth and state that he utters a slander when he makes any such assertion as ho did yesterday evening, and we will now proceed to show that he himself, in the amendment presented pre-sented by him list night and which pissed the council, proved the correctness cor-rectness of our position throughout. through-out. We held that the proposed increase us outrageous and excessive, that the discretion regarding prices i;iven the sexton was too wide and lax, and that his fees were mado ihsurdly high. At tho same time that Mr. Cohn etated that this journal had slandered him because if as3amlDglhIs attitude regarding the outrage b.9 proposed to perforate perfo-rate at the suggestion of sexton Dunnc,he conceded all three of the points wo had insisted upon. The amendment presented by him last night proves this to a demon-i demon-i ration. The measure presented by Mr. Cohn la-t night was entirely different dif-ferent iu essential nolnt 1mm iIia I one which drew forth our strictures. It provides thus: That the price of lots be increased as follows: In plat C, to S103; plat PandQ, 531; in plat It, $23; and that the prica of "Inside lots" be Increased In-creased to $35. This concedes the position of the Xews on two of the three points embodied in the former proposition to which we took exception. (I) It lowers tlie proposed maximum price of lots from $125 to S100, a difference of $23. (2) It takes away the wide discretion of the Sexton regarding the price to be placed upon the respective lots. There only needs one more concession con-cession to cover the ground and establish es-tablish fully and completely Mr. Cohn's acknowledgement of the correctness of the strictures of this journal that is the appirent Jobbery Job-bery of continuing the ten per cent fee to tho sexton under the increased in-creased maximum price for lots of $125 in place of $20. die would tli us have received more than five times tho amount of fee on a lot of the highest price than was allowed under the old ordinance. The amendment presented last night by Mr. Cohn, and which (ossed the Council, provides that on the sale of each lot up to $25 the -exton shall receive the usual ten per cent. Ou all lots sold over that price a fee of $250 on each sale. This covers tlie ground we took on that phase of the sul ject as fairly as could bo desired. We stated in substance that the proposition on the fee question iu the amendment to the ordinance first proposed, Indicated a desire on the part of Mr. Dunne to work the cemetery for all it was worth, and that the committee were evidently not far in the rear-Their rear-Their proposal showed beyond reasonable rea-sonable doubt that they Intended to assist him in carrying out his scheme. The proof of this lies in the fact that the Intention was receded from. The amendment of last night, although still, in our opinion, an imposition on tho people, vindicates, vindi-cates, by its radical modifications on the former proposition, the position of the News, and it Is in the nature of a confession of the most demonstrative demon-strative character on the part of Air. Cohn that he was in the wrong in In the first place. He thus brands hlmelf a slanderer of this Journal, for while his tongue accused us of unjust strictures, his own act proclaimed pro-claimed the correct cess of our position. posi-tion. Perhaps the gentleman was stung by our allusion to tlie fact that he had been legally declared In a court of justice, a usurper to the position ho occupies in the Council of thl city. Perhaps bo would like to characterize that as a Xews slander. slan-der. If so this journal lain a similar simi-lar position In that regard to that of lis Honor Chief Justice Zane, who udlcially settled the status of the alleged Councilman from the Fourth precinct, who never tccuckdcd. Mr. Cohn and his five compatriots who are inj similar position are "object "ob-ject letsona" which exhibit the perfidy and lawka outrages of the party who selected them for candidates. They atoo serve to shew how mall a sense of honor occasionally can be found la individuals, indi-viduals, when they can accept of office, and emolument to which they are not legally or otherwise entitled. en-titled. It Is somewhat singular that cuch men should be so jrniitlTTT when their public acts, which are public property, are properly, Justly and correctly criticised and called In question. |