Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-03-29
THAT OBJECTIONABLE BILL.


Inness, ,rhtIe Judge Attcater Points Out
the Unjust Featmoes of the Park Bill at
the Meeting of the City COitncI-CoI. BEN
ton, one of the Fathers of the Measure
Tries to Explain.
An adjourned meeting of the board of
trade was held yesterday for the purpose
of endeavoring to explain away the obnox-
ious features of the park bill. The meet
ing, in the absence of the president, was
presided over by Vice President Brackett.
The following gentlemen were present:
Geo. A. Pilsbury, Col. Benton, S. j.
Baldwin, Capt. Snyder, G. A. Nimocks,
Capt. Merriman, A. G. Austin, A. G. Hau-
gan, Anthony Kelly, H. G. o. Morrison,
Judge Atwater, George B. Bracket, Gen.
Nettleton, ELS. Corser, S. G. Gale, P. B.
Walker, E. j. Phelps, John De Laittre, A.
B. Barton, Col. Innes, John @ Oswald.
Capt. Merriman suggested that members
of the board who detected what they con-
sidered defect in the bill, at the reading,
state the same in writing as terse-
| ly as possible and that the board after
ward take up such objections for discus
sion.
Judge Atwater opposed the plan on the
ground that it would consume too much
time. He wished to make several impor-
tant objections to the bill, but had not the
time to reduce them to writing. He sug-
gested that the objections be made oral,
and reduced to writing by the respective
parties afterward.
S. @. Gale was impressed with the prac-
ticability of this plan, and Judge Atwater
was invited to proceed with his objections.
JUDGE ATwATER SPEAKS TO THE POINT.
Judge Atwater here took the floor and
made plain his specific objections and
pointed out the defects of the bill. He
pronounced himself as in favor of public
parks, and would work as hard for the
establishment of series of beautiful re-
sorts as would any member of the board,
if they could be established without the
people suffering injustices which are I'M
avoidable under the provisions of the bill.
He considered the method of appraising
lands taken for park purposes as radically
wrong, and to select one appraiser from
each ward was also wrong, and further
the commission should not select ats oaUn
appraisers. 1t was very like a defendant
in a law suit selecting his own jurors. 1t
is very easy, and, withal, natural that the
commissioners should select appraisers
who are favorably inclined. In no instance
should
INTERESTED PARTIES
be allowed to make selections. He was in
favor of these appraisers being appointed
by the Judge of the district court. He
also opposed the provision in the bill,
filming an appraiser $50 should he refuse
or neglect to serve as an appraiser. 1t
was the elimination of injustice. The bill
makes no provision for any excuse for
falling to serve. If he fails to pay the
$50 iDe he may be imprisoned. 1t pro-
vidas that only ten days notice be allowed.
What is that worth to a nonresident or
q party absent from the city? It practi-
cally cuts off his right to be heard before
any court.
Col King here interrupted the speaker
by explaining that ten days was the mini
mum time, but that time may be greater.
JURY PROVISION.
Capt. Norman said that another i'm
portant point was that the time for paying
money extended to time six months dis
tant, and tied up land for that time, and
then the commissioners may abandon all
proceedings. He believed that another
provision had been purposely omitted,
and that was the provision for jury trial,
which he considered the highest right
man has when his property is jeopardized
or is about to be taken from him. The
point is-a jury of citizens would, in the
case of parks, however, make the price as
low as possible, because IL would save their
own lands from exorbitant taxes. Then
when you come to the assessment of bene-
fits you change the rule, and go to the dis
trict court and vote for the appointment of
assessors to assess benefits, and yet it
doesn't give persons living right here suf-
ticient opportunity to be heard. Publish
the notice to-day, and appear before the
court tomorrow, and it is legal.
IS THE OBJECT TO STEAL
land? It virtually confscates his land
without giving him chance to be heard.
The appraisers are, further, not required
to hear evidence of value. The act says
they mag, but does not say they shall,
which it should do, especially where there
is to be no jury. Mr.. Atwater also object
ed to the sale of the parks in case the
bonds are not paid. The city may be liza
bic for the bonds, but the bondholder
would be apt to take the park before he
would sue the city. The city would prob
ably pay the bonds before using the parks,
but no risks should be taken. The Judge
finally objected to the amount of money
which the commissioners can borrow with
in two years-upwards of $55O,OO0.
Mr.. Gale interposed, 'you cannot exceed
the amount of bonded Indebtedness"
Judge Atwater pointedly replied: "Of
course you can't. 1 do not know who was
foolish enough to put that clause in there"
The judge continued, saying he thought
100000 was enough to be expended dur
the first two years. The only answer to
this point is, 'It isn't likely they'll do it."
Yet, after this first good board, you will be
obliged to elect new board, and it will
get into politics, and until you can tell
who the commissioners will be you
shouldn't allow them to expend $350,000.
The judge expressed very clearly his OBJ
| lection to an election board and thought
THE APPOINTING POWER
should have been vested in the judges of
the district court.
The last objection of the speaker was
that of Col. lines, which enabled the as
sessment of the entire cost of the park on
surrounding property, which he regarded