St. Paul daily globe., 1886-08-20
'art of said contract. embracing the build
no of said annr0acheS at its own cost

"a, 1885, entitled, IAN act to authorize the
City of st. Paul to issue bonds to increase
the sewerage fund of the City of st. Paul
and for other purposes" are sufficient
authority in the city to enter into such con-
tract.
This legislation had reference to such
improvements, especially to the bridg-
ing of the said railway tracks
on Third street. Section of
said chapter Z expressly empowers the
Common Council of this city to construct
such bridges, and also to construct the need
full approaches; other parts of said act
empower said Common Council to order
change of grade in the streets in which
such change may be necessary to conform
such streets to the paSsage-way OH the
bridge, and entities persons damaged there
by under certain conditions to an assess
ment by the Board of Public Works for
such damage, and directs the amount so
assessed to be paid out of the general fund
of the city. (Sections and 81
l am of opinion that said chapter was
sufficient authority to the city to build
these approaches at its own cost, and that this
contract was within the authority granted
by said act and was binding upon the
parties to it. and therefore created valid
obligation upon the city to construct these
approaches according to the terms of the
contract.
Said chapter Z, it will be noticed, makes
| radical change in the charter with respect
to a change of grade of streets in the
special cases provided in the act Said act
does not, however, in terms or by implica-
tion, in my opinion, affect the power of the
city to assess benefits arising from the
construction of the bridge or its approaches.
| am of opinion, therefore, that any benefits
arising from the structure, so far as built
| by the city, may be assessed upon property
owners benefited under the same rules as in
other cases of local improvements.
According to my understanding of the
law the city is not confined to the building
of such structure at the expense of the
railroad companies concerned, but may, in
its discretion, build the same, either partly
or wholly, at its own expense
The legislature, in framing this act. as
well as the subsequent act passed at the
same session before referred to, not only
| had in contemplation the comforting of such
power upon the City of st. Paul in cases
like the present, but had in view the con-
ferring of this authority upon this city in
| the very case in question, and such
authority, it seems to me- may, under GER
tain circumstances, become a practicable
necessity. At all events, the Common
| Council of said city have thought it proper
| to exercise their discretion under this
authority, and in this instance have eXer-
ciSed such discretion, as [ believe, upon
careful consideration of the whole matter.
The second act of the legislature referred
to expressly provides that Sf4, 600 may be
raised by bonds of the city, for the con-
| struction of the approaches to this bridge,
being evidently intended, in my opinion, to
aid in part the construction of these ap-
| proaches out of the public fund, leaving
the balance to be raised by assessments on
property benefited. This act is undoubtedly
recognition of the power exercised by
| the city in this instance and also implicitly
sanctioned the action of the City Council
| with respect to this Improvement.
| would advise you, therefore. to report
to the Council whether property can be
| found in point of fact benefited by the i'm
order of the Common Council, leaving
any question of law with respect
to the liability of such property for
said assessment to be determined by the
proper court upon objection of the property
| owners who may desire to raise such ques-
| ton.
These views appear to me to cover the
ground and dispose of the questions sub
mitted to me in your communication as far
as material to the subject.
| have carefully examined the decision of
the supreme court of this state in the case
of the City of Minneapolis against the st.
Paul, Minneapolis 81 Manitoba Railway
Company On. w. vol. %, No. 1,page 81,
but in view taken by me this decision does
not affect the validity of said contract or the
| right of the city in this instance to an as
sessment for hepetits in the matter. Re-
| spectfully,
w. ?. MURRAY, Corporation Attorney.
Aug. Z, 1886.
| Majority report of Board of Public Works
! adopted. (See order to Board of Public
| Works.
Jackson Street Grading Majority Report
To the Common Council of the City OF St.
| Paul:
The Board of Public Works have had
under consideration the resolution or order
of the Common Council. approved May
| 10, 1856, relative to the grading of Jackson
street from Arch street to Pennsylvania
avenue, together with the necessary ap-
proaches to the Jackson street bridge
and having investigated the pro-
posed improvement, respectfully report
that said improvement is necessary and
proper; that the estimated expense thereof
is S4, $50, One-half of which need not be
| paid into the City Treasury before the con-
| tract is let; that real estate to be assessed
therefor can be found benefited to the ex-
tent of the costs and expenses necessary to
| be incurred thereby; that said improvement
| is not asked for by majority of the
owners of property to be assessed therefor.
but we herewith send plan OF profile of said
| improvement, and all order for your adop-
ton if you desire us to make the i'm
provement. Yeas 4, nays 2 (Messrs.
Becker and Mr.. Presidentl.
WILLIAM BARRETT, President.
r. L. GoRMAN, Clerk Board Public Works.
Aug. 16, 1886.
Jackson Street Grading-Minority Report
To the Honorable, Common Council of the
City Of st. Paul:
GENTLEMEN: A minority of the Board
of Public Works herewith respectfully re-
port in the matter of the order of the Com
mon Council. approved May 10, 1885 with
| reference to the approaches to the Jackson
street bridge over the st. Paul, MINNEAPOLIS
4 Manitoba Railway company, that they
have investigated the same as required by
said order
In reply to the first question the Board
| answer that the improvement is necessary
and proper.
In reply to the second request of said
order the Board sends herewith a prelimn-
ary estimate for the grading of said ap
proaches made by the City Engineer The
estimated expense is 81, 800; one-half of the
cost thereof need not, under the circum-
stances, be paid into the City Treasury be-
fore the contract is let
For answer to the third question of said
order the Board report that real estate to
be assessed for said improvement which is
benefited to the extent of damages, costs
and expenses necessary to be incurred
thereby, cannot be found.
Said minority of the Board having made
a full report this day with reference to the
Third stleet crossing in this city, respect
fully refer the Council to said report for the