HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1937 Meeting
JI""""
14
-f'-~'-='-~~"===----- ~~--------------- - -~-_..........----- .~~._---- ._~-~---..-....----------------.......----------.,-.- ,~-~----~._--~.-..,.------....---,.,.----
- . --
Ii Eugene, Oregon
Ii
November 16,1937
f"" I
~"
, 'o,.-~.
~
-"
"
': NOTICE OF SPECIAL~COUNCIL MEETING ,
.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE
You are hereby notified that I have called a special meeting of the Common Council
to meet in the Council Chambers on November 16, 1937 at 5:15 o'clock P. M. for the I
purpose of working out a means to prevent vandalism that has taken place in the cit
of Eugene in the past and secondly to consider the anti-picketing ordinance.
Dated at Eugene, Oregon, November 16, 1937.
ELISHA LARGE, Mayor
Council Chambers, Eugene, Oregon
November 16, 1937
The council IDet in special meeting pursuant to the call of Mayor Large with all
councilmen present except Messrs. Reid and Farrington..
Mayor Large asked for a discussion of the problem first named. After a very brief
discussion among the members of the council, Councilman HeEdershott moved and Page
seconded that the problem of meeting the vandalism situation be left in the hands
of the Police Committee and Chief of Police with power to act including the hiring
J'/ of special officers and the pay to come from the emBrgency fund of the city of Euge e.
This recommendation was unanimously approved. . I
Discussion was opened concerning the anti-picketing ordinance. The Recorder pre-
i ~ sented the following recommendation of the Judiciary Committee which appeared over
tP'1/:: the signature of City Attorney, S. M. Calkins:
I,
Ii
I:
ii "The Judiciary Committee and the City Attorney have taken under
Ii consideration 'the ordinance submi tted at the last Gouncil meet-
i: ing, having for its purpose the prohibiting of picketing in the
I city except when a labor dispute shall have arisen and actually
II
I exists.
I
._rhe statutes of the State of Oregon have cbvered this entire
ground and already provide that picketing is lawfuJ. when a labor
dispute has arisep; and In case no such labor dispute exists a
prompt and efficacious remedy for the person or concern picket-
, ~d is to apply for an injunction. If a labor dispute does exist,
I
the injunction will be denied. If a labor dispute does not exist
it will be granted.
This is in the nature of the exercise of a private right and .
should be carried on at the expense of the persons interested.
The City of Eugene.will continue in the future as in the past,
to maintain order in the city and in disputes of tl1is character
will use every effort to see that the streets are kept in an or- I
i derly and safe condition for its citizens."
I At this time attorney S. D. Allen,'representing Ralph & Stanley and A. W.Brumwell,
i proprietor of the City Barber Shop, presented an amended form of ordinance and geve
I a discussion why the city should adopt an anti-picketing ordinance. He pointed out
~ that two cities in California very recently had such ordinances. He further point-
ij ed out that he felt it within the power of 'the city council to regulate the use of
~ city streets in Eugene. I.
I At this point Councilman Reid arrived.
I Mrs. George Stanley addressed the council making a definite plea towards the pas-
r sage of the ordinance. Hugh Reynolds, Secretary to the local Central Labor
I Council, explained the attitude of his organization on the situation. In his re-
i: marks, he stated, that if the city council felt that an ordinance should be passed
~ that they should do so and his organization would abide by the council's decision
i until the ordinance was broken.
\ At this ti~e City Attorney Calkins was asked to explain the position of the city
t of Eugene Mlth respect to such an ordInance. Mr. Calkins gave a complete explana-
I'
~ II
,
,
~
I 15
I ,
~..............-_-~--~.........~.....-,-.'.........~--=~ -- u
-~
-- -- ,-
~ - - - -~ - -- - _. - - -
tion outlining the history of picketing under Federa1 and state Laws and the most
recent advancemeht taking place in C~ngressand State Legislature, and it was his
opinion that the proposed ordinance should not be passed. .......
I Councilman Carlson moved for adoption of the Judiciary Committee's report. Mr. ~
Lamb seconded the motion. Mr. Hendershott.stated he would hot participate in the
voting because in his own mind he was not clear whether or not such an ordinance
should be passed. The motion was however carried, as all councilmen voted in the
affirmative, except Hendershott.
Upon motion the meeting was adjQurned.
I C. M. BRYAN
City Recorder
.
.
"
I
.
I
I 0
I ..
-
~ ~