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

mated expenBe thereof is S37, 076. one-half of
which need not be paid into the Citr
Treasury b81ore the contract is let. fbar
real estate to be assessed therefor 90
be found benefited to the extent of ~
costs and expenses necessary to fa
incurred thereby; that said improve
ment is not asked for by a petition 81
a majority eli the owners of property to 81
assessed therefor, but we herewith send
plan or profile Of said improvement. aud
an order for your adoption if you desire us
to make the Improvement. Yeas 6, NAYS 0.
The Engineer having submitted plan and
estimate OF cost for the paving and curbinr
of Seventh street, from east end of the
Seventh street bridge Crossing the Mani
toba RailFdad) to Hope street, the same
was laid oysr to the 10th inst, at D. m.
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 2 and 8.
Suburban rs Addition, to a width of sixty
feet. the sane was referred to the Second
Ward member.
In the insstter of the complaint of VIM.
Dunlap that lot A. block q Ewing & Chute's
Addition tosSt Paul, !had been over assessed
for the sever on ST. Peter street. from
Martin street to University Avenue, the En-
gineer repcEf@d as to the frontage on st,
Peter stress IT lots 4, 5. 6; and s, block 2,
Ewing 81 Ghvte's Addition to ST. Paul,
whereuperithe assessment against said lot
4 was orde I'd aDated, so as to conform to
the facts q rights the case as intended.
1t having been made to appear to the
kL-L I.
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 1. Patterson's Addition to st.
Paul (Minaesota Magdalen society, sup
posed own.sr) the same was corrected by
reducing the amount assessed against said
property S63, SO as to conform to the facts
and rightsGoI the case as intended.
The Cornell having returned approved
the awards of the Board of Public Works to
Lauer Bros. for Bedford, - 'sBerea, and
Kettle River stone, and to Henry G. Drake
for aJasperifev stone for the construction,
relaying and repairing of such stone side
walks as may be ordered by said Council
between the 1st day of April and the LIST
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 ulatter OF the final order approved
April so, 1885,, 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 Tor said improvement, the fol-
lowing report was ordered sent to the Coun-
ell, to-Wit:
To the Honorable, the President and
Members the Common Council of the
City OF II, Minnesota:
GENTLEMEN: Hhe final order of the
Common Council for che oiSesi,c- of Broad
way street from Grsse street ~ Thir-
teenth l1fis Street, approved
1885, togetaer with the report of IL.
mittee pm Streets. relating to the SAME
ter, adopted by The Council st its meet
April ~, 1886. are respectfully returned
the Council for an unqualified and an I'M
conditional final order, if your honorable
body are still of the opinion that this in
provement (the opening of Broadway
Final orders of the Common Council -,
this Board directing any local improvem,
to be made for which an assessment mus b7
made to dAfray the cost thereof, are jus
dictional, and should be clear definite, ces-
tain, unqualified and unconditional. Apr
10, 1886, this Board reported to the Couu-
Gil that the proposed opening of Broadwa.
between the streets above named was
necessary and proper, with proper answers
to the usslsl formal questions submitted ~
the Council to the Board in the prelimin arg
orders ofhthe Council, and transm tel
herewith the proper final order for the
opening ot said street
The report of the Board was referred t;g
the Council to the Committee on Streets,
who made report in writing to the Coun~
ell, copy of which is hereto attache
which was adopted by the Council, yea
IL, nays !, after which, and as a part rs
the SAME act. the report of tbs
Board Of April 10, 1886, abol5
referred to, was also adopted by the Co,tll-
Gil. yeas Is, nays l. as more fully appears
from the printed proceedings of the Council
meeting IF April %, 1886.
from these proceedings of the Council,
1t would seem that the action of the Coun-
Gil In passing the final order for the OPEN
ing OF Br6adwayiwas based upon this report
OF tho Gommittee on Streets, and that the
Council fanay have acted upon the pre-
sumption that this Board would be in
fiuenced, II noJ actually controlled, by
the recommendation of your committee, in.
determining the limits of the assessment dis
trict within which the property should ana
would BIZ assessed for benefits 20 defray tha
expenselof the damages and costs te ba
incurred by the opening of said stree
and it would also seem to be a fair infsl-
ence th$t the Council might not haye,
ordered said Improvement to be made, he :
not the order been accompanied by the
report cf your committee previouslr
adopted, with the implied understanding
that this Board would be governed by the
recommendation of your committee.
The provisions of the city charter defn-
ing the rewers 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 81 the City of Saint Paul, % Mimi,
Reports I442, makes this Board the sole
judge pr the question of benefits, and.
upon tbs question its Judgement is
final and conclusive, and cannot be re-
versed By the District Court, or any other
tribunal slpniess shown to be fraudulent liz
fact, or Unless 1t is made up upon a demon->
stratablo mistake of fact"
The Bi,ard believe that this report of your
COMMITTEES, adopted by the Council prior to
the passage of the final order directing SAID
improvement TO be made, and in point OF
time. coupled with it the passage of said
final ordfr. is in the nature of, if not ils
fact, ceidition to said final order. APP
proved April 80, 1856.
If thelb0ard are right in this belief ID
would, i'll their opinion, be unsafe, not Ton
say dangerous. to proceed to open Broad
way undlh the order approved April SO,
1886.
ThereE1re several persons who are, If moi
actually opposed to the opening of Broad
way, opposed to being assessed any sung
as benefits for said opening. Some
of theseir'ersons have already employed at
torneys ito protect their interests, and ie
may b. safely assumed that they wils
closel n atch the proceedings of the Coun-
Gil and we Board. and that they will GER
tainly and quickly take advantage of any
jurisdicti onal questions left open to them
The Boald would respectfully suggest that
no opportunity be given to any one to de-
feat, or even to delay, this improvement.
when it may be easily avoided, and would