The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1875-03-12
TEE CITY IMPROVEMENTS.
The znJunctson Sn.,a.

| Iectln2 the special tax on Commercial
street, for the macadamizing thereof
were voted down, and as those resolu-
lions, upon their face, appear to b;
fair aud unobJectIonable, It may not b,
lnOpportune zt this time, TO give his
tory of this matter, In order that th.
action Of councilmen MeCarter, Hib
ben and Morrison, and Mayor Graham
may not be misunderstood. AS Is vel
known, in 1871 the city entered into
contract with one Joseph Brown t.
macadamize Commercial street, in til.
city, from Sd to 9TH avenues. The
contract was fully performed by Mr.
Brown, who did I good piece of worE
cheAply. A tax was levied In the ial
of 1871 on the property AUDITING the
improvement, for the purpose of pay
ing therefor. A few of the property
owners along Commercial street, whit
were largely interested in the advance
ment of the city's welfare, but who
did not desire to contribute to such all.
Yancement at their own expense, en-.
Joined the collection of this tax
Among those lnjunctioners were C. V
Eskride, II. E. Norton, Ed. Rorton
Van r. Holmes, NJ. III. Bates and 9th.
ers. The only reason they gave
through their counsel in court, fol
not paying the tax, was because the
city engineer had failed to make an es.
innate OF the cost of the work before
the council let the contract to Mr.
Brown. They never denied but that
the work was done well and cheaply
Some of them went so far as to en-
courage the work, and one in particu-
lar pleaded in the name of all that his
fertile Imagination conld think of, for
the committee who had the work in
charge, to extend it in front Of his lots
or he would be ruined.
The test case was tried in the Dis
trict Court, Judge Watson presiding,
and Judgment rendered against the
city. The city appealed to the Su-
preme Court and the Judgment of the
District Court was reversed. When
the case was sent back for trial f. b.
Peyton was Judge of the District
Court, and he being of counsel for the
city, the case was sent to Chase coun-
ty for trial. The case was again tried
in Chase county, Judge Brown presid-
ing, who also rendered Judgment
against the city. From Browns de-
cision the city took an appeal to the
Supreme Court, which again reversed
the judgement OF the District Court.
The counsel for the injunetors has
made q motion for rehearing in the
Supreme Court, this being the last wire
he can pull at the close OF three years
of litigation, involving an expense to
the city OF several hundred dollars.
In 1871, when the macadamizing
was tompieted, the city paid Mr..
Brown his contract price in orders on
the matchmaking fund, which scrip
would have been paid at the treasurer's
Office had Mr.. Eskridge and the other
injuncters paid their matchmaking
tax. They failed to do it, and Mr..
Brown held the scrip against the city,
drawing only : per cent. interest. The
city, council in June, 1872, knowing
that Mr.. Brown had performed his
contract TO the letter, and was entitled
to his pay, by ordinance, under Sec. 30
of chapter 100 OF the laws of 1872,
took up 5000 of Mr.. Browns scrip,
and issued an equal amount of bonds
payable in one year, drawing ten per
cent. interest chargeable only to the
local property on Commercial street,
abuttins the Improvement. Mr..
Brown sold these bonds shortly after
they were issued, to an innocent pur-
chaser, who had every reason to pre-
sumo that the city would keep good its
promises. These bonds have been due
for nearly two years, and would have
been paid long ago but for the fact
that the council relied upon its levy
upon the property of the injunctors to
pay them. These are the bonds upon
which suit is brought in the U. S. court,
and in relation to which the reso-
lutions of Mr.. Epstein and Mr.. Lakin,
offered at the council meeting last
Monday, referred.
Mr.. Ruggles, the present city attor-
ney, and who was the attorney for the
iniunctors. gives his opinion to the
council that the bonds can be success
fully defended against, and Mr.. Esk-
ridge and the other injunctors cry ont
defend, and are so anxious that the
city shall employ the attorney to de-
fend the suit. Now IL Judgment is
rendered against the city on the bonds
no property but that of the iniunctors
will be liable therefor, for the bonds
read upon their face they are charga-
BILE to local property only. Then why
the city defend at its expense; it sure
ly has been put to enough expense al
ready by those men lchO alone are in
tereSted IN the eUeRt Of the suit, in
the circuit court, and If the suit is to be
defended at all, why not let them pay
the expenses of such defense, and not
cause the city to pay Mr.. Ruggles (who
has been the cause of the great loss
which the city has already sustained
in the matter) from $3.50, to $500 to
prevent the city from paying its hon.
est debts. Councilmen McCarter, Hib-
ben and Morrison and Mayor Graham
realize the honesty OF the debt, and
viii not permit the eity's name to be
used in defending such claim, by any
such iiimsy, shystering grounds as
Atechnical irregularities" even If any
should exist. These men like any
honest, upright citizen, want that debt
paid. These are the consideration $
which induced the gentlemen above
named, to act and vote as they did on
Monday night, and every citizen who
has in his heart the faintest desire to do
what is right and just, between man
and man, viii uphold and
honor them in their action
They are willing TO take the adj
vice of Judge Buck, who represented
the city with such marked ability in
these injunction suits, VINO advises them
that the bonds are legal and just.
They will not take the advice of Mr.
Ruggles, the counsel opposing the city
in these suits, however much he may