The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1883-04-27
Special Meeting of Oouneil.

Special Meeting Of Council.
The City Council met in special scs
sion Monday evening for the transaction
OF such business AS might come up, and
especially to decide the question of Ii.
censc fees for the ensuing year.
The Mayor re-appointed the night
watchmen rs follows Geo. r. Blake,
north district; Jas. Kelly, middle dis.
trict; Alex. Mcdonald, south district.
| l.. Bishmnn WAS selected pound mas
ter for the ensuing year.
JOS. Schlingermap was reelected
street commissioner. and his salary in.
creased from $35 to $40. His term OF
service commences on the LIST day of May
and concludes the LIST day Of November,
and for services rendered the city after
the latter date, he is to receive 81 80 per
day.
Mr.. ElwOOd Lillcy was elected city
surveyor, with salary of $50 per month
from May first until November LIST, and
$500 per day for every day of actual
service rendered the city thereafter.
On motion, the salary of chief of po
lice and assistant was placed at $40 per
month each, and the night watchmcn at
$25. These sums are the same rs were
paid last year.
Chief of police Robinson was elected
tire warden, with salary Of $40 per
month, which gives him total salary
of $50 per month.
Mr.. Perry, police constable, was voted
a salary Of $40 per month. Heretofore
his pay has been entirely from fees, but
the business In his department being
light, the compensation from this source
alone was justly considered inadequate
The salary of city attorney and fees
of city treasurer were placed at same
figures as last year.
The recommendation received from
the fire department for officers of that
organization, was accepted and the gen.
tlemen elected, as follows:
Chief Engineer-B. ID. Pay,
| LIST Asst. Z" John A. Sambon.
Ind Asst " John Schweitzer.
Mr.. w. d. Tompkins presented pc
tition asking for rebate of taxes unjust
ly assessed against him for the construc-
ton of a sidewalk abutting his property
on Walnut street, claimed to have been
built by the city. He affirms that the
city did not build the walk, and has
therefore no authority for assessing Inn
in the premises. The matter was re-
TERED to the proper committee for in
vestigation. The following are stand
ing committees for the ensuing year:
Ways and Aeams-Alds. Burgess McMurtrie
and DOugherty.
Caims and ieeounts-Alds. Mills, Theissen
and Burt.
Lieense-Alds. Carney. Andrews and Nc
Streets, Alleys and Grades-Alds. Carney, An
drews, DOugherty and Thcissen.
FIRE Department-Alds Dougherty, Andrews
and HOerr:
1ares-Alds. Burt. Burgess and Theissen.
CITY Property-Alds Mills, McMurtrie and
HOerr.
0rdinance-Alds. Carney, Boegcn and Hill
=, Priion-AIds. Andrews. Zimmerman and
Theissen.
On Water Works-Alds. Andrews, Dougherty
McMurtrie and Carney
Bond OF Chief Robinson, with II. p.
Christensen and John Klein as sureties,
was approved.
Bill Of Mr.. Guide, for judgment rem
dered against the city for $500, costs
and interest, amounting in whole to
something over $3.50, was presented
Some OF the aldermen not being quite
satisfied as to the costs in the case being
correct, the matter was referred to the
city attorney, and will he disposed of at
the next meeting of the council.
The regular business of the council
having been disposed of. Mayor Max
field Informed Mr.. Pau, the attorney
Of the Liquor Dealers Association, that
the council was ready to hear what he
had to say in regard to the illegality of
the present license fee of $50.
Mr.. Pau came forward and made
very earnest plea for the reduction of
the license, which we have boiled down
to the following principal points. Mr..
Pfau said:
Mr.. President and Gentlemen of the Council:
thank you for the courtesy you have cX-
tendedne, on behalf Of the Liquor Dealers
Association, and shall endeavOr to be brief
I'm my remarks. On our ordinance book we
find provision fixing the license fee of SD
looms at 500 for the first year and $3.50 per
year thereafter. While question the legal
ity Of this ordinance, also question whether
this council has the authority for passing al
ordinance that shall govern the action of an
other body. But the main ground we have
for complaint Is that you as councilmen and
creatures of the law have no right to charge
the sum Of $3.50 for licenses. You have no
authority vested In you for assuming any
thing. unless you can put your finger upon
the law that will sustain you unquestiOnably
in such action. As a principle of law, the
city cannot take authority by implication,
but from facts entirely. You will find i'm
your charter authority for licensing spiritu-
GUS, vinOus and malt liquors, with the single
proviso that you shall charge no less sum
than $25. You have no right to imply that
you can charge more than this sum, because
there Is none other fixed But it is the policy
Of the law to have maximum, as well rs a
minimum, and the statute of Minnesota dis
tinctly says greater sum than 500 for ga
loon license shall not be charged. The city
charter says you shall not charge less than
$25 and the State law says you shall not
charge more than $1OO-neither cOntradicting
| nor conflicting with the other. Where these
laws are found in such perfect harmony how