St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-14
The Ooronsrs Jury Places Inspeoto
Pardee in the List With the
Exonerated,
But Still Holds Architect 0rff and Gar.
penter Putnam as Not Altogether
Guiltless.
Another ssProud Day'' for Judson N
Cross, Whose Opinions Retard
the Inspector.
A Defective Building Ordinance
Which Made 1t Impossible to
Prevent Violations.
The racket Block Disaster

the Inquest over the remains of John Sim
mons. The council committee adjourned
until this morning, and the inquest pro-
ceeded. Building Inspector Pardee was
the first witness, and testified substantially
as follows:
Mr.. Bracket was not subject to arrest and
l was advised by the city attorney or assist
ant that no more cases should be prosecuted
until the ordinance had been amended.
persuaded Mr.. Bracket to go to the council,
which saved me the necessity of arresting
him. The ordinance was found to be de-
fect1ve in the prosecution Of L. ID. Putnam,
when the penalty was discovered to be be-
You'd the jurisdiction of the court. Judge
Bailey held thas the ordinance was
GOOD UP TO 500,
the limit of the jurisdiction Of the court, but
Mr.. Carleton advised me not to bring any
more actions until the penalty clause had
been amended, as he thought it would
have an injurious effect to make pub
lie the fact that the ordinance was defective.
The reason the permit, which was made
out, was not issued, was because of the re-
moval of the fire wall. / had the impression
that the foundation was not to be touched. I
knew that the post and girder construction
WAS to be used in repairing, and US an archi-
tect thought the basement was sufficiently
strong. There appeared no element of
danger, since / believed that the basement
wall was not to be moved. I never knew,
previous to the accident that the wall was
removed. L did not know OF the passage Of
the amendment to the ordinance until the day
of the accident. The amendment was passed
by the city council the previous
Friday, but I failed to find it in
the paper designated for official
publication. The city clerk also failed to no
tify me and I ascertaned the fact only few
hours before the building fell. I has never
been customary to issue permit for tearing
down a building, as it was not in the ord-
nance. An opinion to this effect was adj
vanced to me by the city attorney. Accord
ing to section 2, 1 ought to have issued per-
nit to build the addition. In my conStruc-
ton OF the ordinance reference is only made
to an addition to a building and not to the
tearing down. have been to the city attor-
ney many times, but must confess that l
have had too little advice. 1t has been next
to impossible to get an opinion from City At
torney Cross. He almost always referred me
to his assistant What I have secured has
been exceedingly little and exceedingly veXa-
tious to procure. am sorry to say this, but
such is the fact There is no feeling in this
matter. The city attorney told me it was his
province to try cases, but not to interpret
the ordinances.
CROSS PUTS IN AN OAR.
By the request of City Attorney Cross
Mr.. Pardee was asked if he had named the
Bracket case as reason for urging the
passage of amendments to the ordinance,
but did not remember that he had referred
to that particular case.
Whenever found Mr.. Carlton, the assist
ant city attorney, he always gave me all the
information in his power, but it was q hard
matter for me to get any opinion out of Capt.
Cross, and have been often forced to act
upon my own Judgment in matters upon
which I felt that ! should have legal advice.
To get any information out of the city attor-
ney was one of the hardest jobs ever had.
The jury here retired to dine and upon re-
assembling in the afternoon, Deputy Clerk
DAILY of the municipal court produced the
records and testified that Mr.. Carlton had
suggested that the cases then commenced
should be dropped until the ordinance had
been amended.
FRANK II. CARLTON,
assistant city attorney, next took the stand
and testified:
Mr.. Par1ee at no time previous to the acct
dent spoke to me concerning the Bracket
block. Capt. Cross drew up the amended
ordinance, which was approved April 80 and
published May l. In my opinion the amended
ordinance covers cases similar to the Bracket
case, and is strengthened in the amended
ordinance. Mr.. Bracket could have been
prosecuted to the extent of s25 up to May 1,
and the new law became operative after that.
Mr.. Carlton then explained the Putnam
case, and said:
He had argued that the penalty clause was
void only for ne amount in excess Of 500,
which is the limit of the jurisdiction of the
municipal court. Only the judge and clerk
of the municipal court can prevent the issu-
ance Of a warrant, and the city attorney can
not when the clerk is disposed to issue one.
The county attorney has the right to nolle
pros. cases, and the city attorney has been
allowed by custom to exercise the same priv
iege.
ANOTHER PROUD DAY"
City Attorney Cross requested that he be
called again to make an explanation regard
ing MIR. Pardee's statement. Wesley Neal
replied:
1 don't think we are here to investigate the
entire city government, but we will hear you
for five minutes.
Mr.. Cross then went on to state that he
had never heard the Bracket block men-
toned in connection with any building Or
dinance until after the disaster III reply
to Mr.. Pardee's assertion that he had found
it difficult to get any opinion from the city
attorney, Mr.. Cross said that the building
inspector had called upon him for advice
more frequently than any other city official
He thought Mr.. Pardee had spoken hastily
and would not have said what he did under
ordinary circumstances.
II wish to assert that Mr.. Pardee was al
ways given legal advice when he requested
it. have even gone out of the way to in
spect the forms that he used in his office-a
matter that embraced more bookkeeping than
law
.Could Mr. Pardee have restrained Mr..
Bracket from tearing out that wall? That
what we would like to find out" said Coroner
Hill.
THOUGHT HE MIGHT.
After good heal of hemming and haw-
ing Mr. Cross intimated that he presumed
that he might
eff Mr. Bracket saw At to disregard the
order what could Mr.. Pardee have done?''
asked DR.. Hill.
sWell he might have brought him before
the municipal court, but just at that time
think it would have been inadvisable to have
done it. If Mr.. Pardee had come to myself or
Mr.. Carlton about the matter we might have
instituted an action, but under the circum-
stances I do not think he was to blame. If
Mr.. Bracket had paid fine there would have
been ground for an injunction. This must
necessarily have been ordered by the council
There is only one class of cases that can be
instituted without the authority of the ooun-
Gil, and that is the right Of the mayor to ask
mandamus to compel an official to do his
duty.
A FAITHFUL OFFICIAL.
In closing his testimony MI. Hicks vOlun-
teered the information that he considered
that Mr.. Pardee had been conscientious
and faithful official. Aid. johnson next
testified as follows:
The controversy between Mr.. Bracket and
Inspector Pardee was not in regard to any
danger of taking down the wall, but concern
ing the removal of the fire wall. The manner
of taking down the wall was not considered.
I told Pardee that / thought Mr. Bracket
could go ahead under the ordinance.
never told Mr.. Bracket to go
ahead without permit. But he said
to me, well, this will be one building without
permit Pardee can bring suit if he wants
to- / told Mr.. Pardee that he had better not
cause any more suits to be brought until the
ordinance was amended. Mr.. Pardee did all
in his power to have these amendments
passed by the city council Previous to these
amendments Inspector Pardee said he was