St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-06-11
s1Oo,oOe.oc


which need not be paid into the Cif1-
Treasury bsfore the contract is let. fbat
real estate to be assessed therefor a..
be found benefited to the extent of ~,
costs and expenses necessary to he
incurred thereby; that said improve
ment is not asked for BY a petition IL
majority OF the owners Of property TO b.
assessed therefor, but we herewith seno
plan or profile of said improvement. ana
an order for your adoption if you desire us
to make the Improvement Yeas 6. NAYS
The Engiqeer having submitted plan and
estimate OF cost for the paving and curbin~
of Seventh street, from east end of the
Seventh street bridge (crossing the Mani
toba Railrcad) TO Hope street. the same
was laid over to the 10th inst, at 4 D. IN.
and the Clerk was directed to invite Mr..
Thomas Lowry to be present at said time.
when said matter will come up for consider
alton.
The Engineer having submitted plan of
land to be taken for the opening and widen
ing of the alley between blocks Q and 3.
Suburban II .lls Addition, to width of sixtv
feet. the sane was referred to the Second
Ward member.
In the nl.tter of the complaint of VIM.
Dunlap that lot 4, block 2, Ewing d Chute's
Addition to st. Paul, Ihad been over assessed
for the sewer on st. Peter street. from
Martin street TO University Avenue, the En-
gineer reported as to the frontage On st.
Peter streef OF lots 4, 5, s: and s, block 3,
Ewing Sc Chute's Addition to st. Paul,
assessment against said lot
4 was 0rde ed aDated, so as to conform to
the facts d rights ofthe case as intended.
1t having been made to appear to the
Board thai an error has been made in
the assessment for the grading, sur
facing and curbing of Olmsted street,
from Pine street to John street. as to north
so feet of lot /, Patterson's Addition to st.
Paul minnesota Magdalen society, sup
posed ownssr), the same was corrected by
reducing the amount assessed against said
property S63, SO as to conform to the facts
and rightsfof the case as intended.
The Council having returned approved
the awards of the Beard of Public Works to
Lauer Bros. for Bedford" '.Berea" and
Kettle River stone, and to Henry C. Drake
for s.Jasperitep stone for the construction.
relaying and repairing of such stone side
walks as may be ordered by said Council
between the LIST day of April and the 1st
day of November, 1886, the same were re-
ferred to the City Attorney to draw con-
tracts and President of Board to execute.
In the Dlatter of the final order approved
April 80, 1886. for the opening of Grove
street to Thirteenth street. to connect with
L'Orient street and North Broadway, to-
gether with report and recommendation of
the committee on streets in reference to the
assessment for said improvement, the fol-
lowing report was ordered sent to the Coun-
ell, to-wit:
To the Honorable, the President and
Members he Common Council of the
City ef'St.A.,. Il. Minnesota:
GENTLENEN: The final order of the
Common Council for tthe oB5 e,i,,' of Broad
way street, from GrSye street to Thir-
teenth tisti5 street, approved
1886, together with the report of e..
mlftee on Streets, relating to the SAINT
ter, adopted by the Council at its meet
April ~, 1856. are respectfully returned
the Council for an unqualified and an un-
conditional final order, if your honorable
body are still of thu opinion that this in,
provemenf tthe dfening of Broadway.
should be made.
Final orders of the Common Council "a
this Board directing any local improvem,
to be made for which an assessment mus
made to defray the cost thereof. are IL.
and should be clear, definite, &C
tain. unqualified and unconditional. Apr
10, 1886, this Board reported to the Couu-
ell that the proposed opening of Broadwa
between the streets above named W.
necessary and proper, with proper answer
to the usual formal questions submitted
the Council to the Board in the prelimin g
orders DIN the Council, and transm
Herewith the proper final order for tue
opening Ok said street.
The report of the Board was referred b
the Council to the Committee On Streets,
who made report in writing to the Coun~
ell, copy of which is hereto attach,
which was adopted by the Council, y6.
IS, nays !, after which, and as a part
the same act, the report of II
Board Of April 10, 1886, abe
referred to, was also adopted by the Co;,l.-
Gil, yeas Is, nays l. as more fully appears
from the printed proceedings of the Council
meeting Of April 81, 1856.
From these proceedings of the Council,
it would seem that the action of the Coun-
Gil in passing the final order for the OPEN
ing OF Br0adwayiwas based upon this repork
OF the Committee on Streets, and that the
Council e1nay have acted upon the pre-
sumption that this Board would be in.
fluenced, If not actually controlled, bv
the recommendation of your committee, in
determining the limits of the assessment d
trict within which the property should ana
would bt, assessed for benefits 20 defray tas
expense of the damages and costs to tss
incurred by the opening Of said stree
and it would also seem to be fair lnfai
ence that the Council might not bagss
ordered said improvement to be made, h..
not the order been accompanied by tho
report Vf your committee previous
adopted, with the implied understanding
that this Board would be governed by the
of your committee.
The Provisions of the city charter defin-
ing the powers and duties of the Board OF
Public Works, as interpreted By the
Supreme Court of this state, in the case OF
the State of Minnesota eX rel. John W
Cunningham against the Board of Public
Works Of the City of Saint Paul, - Mimi.
Reports 442, makes this Board the sole
Judge Df the question of benefits, and.
upon tbs question its judgement is
inal and conclusive, and cannot. be re-
versed By the District Court, or any other
unless shown to be fraudulent liz
fact, or Unless it is made up upon a demon->
,tratable mistake of fact"
The Bpard believe that this report of your
committee, adopted by the Council prioI tos
lie passage Oh the maj OrtCF QlrCctlng SaltS
to be made, and in point o.
lime. coupled with it the passage of saiG,
inaI order. is in the nature of, if not liz
.act, a condition to said final order. APP
proved April 80, 1856.
If thelboard are right in this belief, ie
would, III their opinion, be unsafe, not IN
Jay dangerous. to proceed to open Broad
way undEr the order approved April SO,
1886.
There are several persons who are, if mob
actually opposed to the opening of Broad
way, opposed to being assessed any sung
vhatevei as benefits for said opening. Some
If thesespersons have already employed at
orneys TO protect their interests, and is
nay BE- safely assumed that they wilS
,losel atch the proceedings of the COun-
Ill ana we Board, and that they will GER
ainly and quickly take advantage of any
questions left open to them.
The Boall would respectfully suggest that
10 opportunity be given to any one to de.
eat, or even to delay, this improvement.
when it may be easily avoided, and would
lheraforei reS,,pcffnlly renueSt yOur honor.