On Thursday, July 8, 1909, the common council unanimously approved a proposal to borrow $7,000 for the purchase of the Pearson property, but the board of aldermen voted three to two in favor, defeating the proposal which required a two-thirds vote. The common council then approved a measure to take money from the city treasury for the purpose, which required only a majority vote. The board of aldermen decided to delay their vote for two weeks.
Keene Evening Sentinel
July 9, 1909
Page 5
FINAL ACTION DEFERRED
Aldermen Defeat One Bill to Purchase Pearson Lot Which Provided for
Borrowing Purchase Money and Required Two-Thirds Vote –
Simple Authorization and Appropriation Bill The Passed by Council and
Aldermen Defer Action Two Weeks.
A peculiar but not unforeseen condition of affairs developed Thursday evening at the special meeting of the city councils called to take action on the proposition of the state normal school trustees that the city join with them in purchasing the Pearson lot and adding it to the normal school site. The common council was unanimously in favor of making the purchase, but two of the aldermen were opposed to the measure or were not ready to vote for it at that time. This situation prevented the passage of a joint resolution authorizing the borrowing of money for the project, and thus requiring a two-thirds vote of both boards. Another bill simply appropriating the money from the treasury, and requiring only a majority vote, was then passed by the lower board, but the members of the of the board of aldermen not having a clear understanding of the difference between a possible treasury deficit, such as has frequently occurred, and an authorized city debt in any form, it appeared doubtful if the second bill would receive the necessary three affirmative votes at that time. A motion was made to defer action until September, but was amended to provide for an adjournment of two weeks, pending further consideration of the bill, and the council concurring the meeting was adjourned till Thursday evening, July 22.
In the absence of President Tifflin, Councilman M. V. Wright was chosen president pro tem of the lower board and the first resolution was introduced authorizing the purchase of the Pearson property on the terms proposed by the normal school trustees and empowering the finance committee to pledge the credit of the city for the $7,000 required for the purpose. Two petitions from prominent citizens urging the purchase of the property were read.
On the passage of the measure, which occurred without debate, the ayes and nays were called as provided by the rules and all the members present voted yes, as follows: Councilmen Wilkins, Palmer, Colby, Sargent, Fish, Drummer, Blanchard, Wright, Bagg, Beery, and Fitzgerald. Messrs. Tifflin, Nye, Pitcher and Ollis were absent, most of them being out of town, it is understood.
The resolution having reached the upper board, the petitions of prominent taxpayers urging the purchase of the property were read and the bill was put on its passage. Alderman Carleton said he thought the pending resolution was hardly specific enough in some particulars, and moved to amend by substituting after the enacting clause, a bill drawn by Lawyer O. E. Cain, in the absence of Solicitor Benton. This bill contained a provision for borrowing the money similar to the one passed by the council and provided that all the Thayer property should be transferred and that the state should pay its money over to the city, which should buy the property and transfer it to the state. The amendment was adopted and the bill placed on its passage.
Alderman Applin said he was not quite prepared to see the resolution pass. He did not think the city should take $7,000 and spend it for the purpose, and he desired to table the bill till the next regular meeting in September. Alderman Pierce thought action ought to be taken and the roll was called on the passage of the bill. Aldermen Pierce, Carleton and Smyth voted yes and Aldermen Applin and Kennedy voted no. This gave less than two-thirds in favor of the measure and it failed to pass.
A joint resolution providing that the city contribute $7,000 towards the purchase of the Pearson lot, including all of the land bought of the Thayer estate, and appropriating the above sum from any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, was then passed by the common council. This bill being put upon its passage in the upper board, Alderman Kennedy moved its postponement until the next regular meeting in September. Alderman Carleton suggested a modification of the motion so as not to delay the matter unnecessarily. This would give time for further thought and enquiry and might result in a closer agreement among the members of the board. He said he was at first opposed to the purchase of the property, but was now much more in sympathy with the plan and thought a beneficial result to the city would follow its adoption. He did not wish to hamper the state board by too long a delay.
Alderman Pierce said he was ready to vote on the matter at once and thought action should be taken.
‘
Alderman Smyth said that when the matter first came to his attention he was very much opposed to the project believing the city had already given enough to the state, it now looked 6o him as if there was a great probability that the state would need more land and it looked to him as if the purchase of the extra lot would be a public benefit. He thought the aldermen should vote for its purchase. No other property could be acquired that would give as much desirable results.
Alderman Kennedy said he was opposed to the purchase because he did not believe the city or the state needed the extra land. All parties were at first satisfied with the Hale lot, which he thought was sufficient.
Alderman Carleton inquired if the pending resolution would require a two-thirds vote. The chair said it would not. Alderman Applin considered the resolution a trap and did not approve of it. There would be land enough for sale in Keene for some time to come, he thought, if it was wanted for the school.
Alderman Carleton inquired if the city’s bank account had recently been or would be overdrawn if the $7,000 was used. He should hardly feel justified in voting for the bill if it was really going to create a debt. The mayor said the city’s account might have been short for a day or two; he was not sure whether it was or not. The passage of the pending bill might also require a loan in the future.
Alderman Carleton moved to adjourn for two weeks, pending further action on the bill, and this motion was carried and concurred in by the lower board….