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

l.Ul
which need not be paid into the Cir
Treasury before the contract is 1t. tbar
real estate to be assessed therefor -,
be found benefited to the extent Of ~
costs and expenses necessary To I.e
incurred thereby; that said improve
ment is not asked for by a petition
majority OF the owners Of property TO e.
assessed therefor, but we herewith senc
plan or profile of said improvement. an
an order for your adoption if you desire as
to make the Improvement Yeas 6, NAYS 9.
The Engineer having submitted plan AMI
estimate of cost for the paving and curb.
of Seventh street, from east end of the
Seventh street bridge Crossing the Mani
toba Railread) 10 Hope street, the same
was laid 0ysr to the 10th inst, at 4 D. H..
and the Clerk was directed to invite Mr..
Thomas Lowry to be present at said time
when said matter will come up for cor slider
alton.
The Engineer having submitted plan of
land to be taken for the opening and WIDEN
ing of the alley between blocks and 3,
Suburban HIS Addition, to width OF sixty
feet. the same was referred to the Second
Ward member
In the Inatter 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 sever on st. Peter street. from
Martin street to University Avenue, the En-
gineer report I'd as to the frontage On st.
Peter stress OF lots 4, 5, 8. and s, block 2,
Ewing & Chute's Addition to ST. Paul,
whereuporsthe assessment against said lot
4 was orde I'd abated, so as to conform to
the facts d rights of the case as intended.
1t havins been made to appear to the
Board that 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 owner), the same was corrected by
reducing the amount assessed against said
property sos, SO as to conform to the facts
and rightsGof the case as intended.
The Council having returned approved
the awards of the Board OF Public Works to
Lauer Bros. for Bedford, - ''Berea" and
Kettle River stone, and to Henry c. Drake
for ''Jasperitep 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 1st
day of November. 1856, the same were re-
ferred to the City Attorney to draw con-
tracts and President of Board to execute.
In the platter 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-
Gil, to-wit:
TO the Honorable, the President and
Members he Common Council of the
City of'St..,. u. Minnesota:
GENTLEMEN: jthe final order of the
Common Council fer Che o2 erin, of Broad
way street. from Grg5e street IL Thir-
teenth ti1fh} street, approved
1856, together with the report of t..
mlttee on Streets, relating to the SAINT
ter, adopted by the Council st its NEE,
April q, 1856, are respectfully returned a,
the Council for an unqualified and an un-
conditional final order, if your honorable
body are still of thu opinion that this Il,
provement (the ofening of Broad
should be made
Final orders of the Common Council 2.
this Board directing any local imprOvem.
to be made Tor which an assessment mus
made to defray the cost thereof, are IL
dictional, and should be clear, definite, G.
tain. unqualified and unconditional. Az.
10, 1886, this Board reported TO the Com
Gil that the proposed opening of Broad.
between the streets above named W.
necessary and proper, with proper auSve
to the usual formal questions submitteG
the Council to the Board in the prelimi
orders OH the Council, and transm
herewith the proper final order for tug
opening OF said street.
The report of the Board was referred t.
the Council to the Committee on Steats,
who made report in writing to the Coan~
ell, a copy of which is hereto attach.
which was adopted by the Council, Y
IS, nays /, after which, and as a part
Board of April 10, 1886, alb
referred to, was also adopted by the co..
Gil, yeas Is, nays 1. as more fully appears
from the printed proceedings of the Council
meeting Of April27, 1856.
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 Br0adwaytwas based upon this report
of the Committee on Streets, and that the
Council may have acted upon the pre-
sumption that this Board would be in
fiuenced, if not actually controlled, by
the recommendation Of your committee, liz
determining the limits OF the assessment IL
trict within which the property should an6
would BIZ. assessed for benefits 20 defray ls
expense of the damages and costs to bs
incurred by the opening of said stree
and it would also seem to be fair mfal
ence thst the Council might not ha
ordered said improvement to be made, h..
not the order been accompanied by the
report ef your committee previous
adopted, with the implied understanding
that this Board would be governed by tn
accommodation of your committee.
The provisions of the city charter defn-
ing the powers and duties of the Board OF
Public Works, as interpreted b. the
Supreme Court of this state, in the Use OF
the State. of Minnesota eX rel. John w
Cunningham against the Board of Pubic
Works Of the City of Saint Paul - Mimi
Reports 442, makes this Board tho sole
Judge Df the question of benefits, ana
upon tits question its judgement is
final and conclusive, and cannot be re
versed By the District Court, or any otAel.
tribunal, unless shown to DC fraudulent IL
fact, or Unless it is made up upon demon
stratable mistake of fact"
The Bpard believe that this report of your
committee, adopted by the Council prio4 In
the passage of the final order directing SalG
improvement to be made, and in point o
time. coupled with it the passage of saiG
final order, is in the nature of, if not ils
fact, condition to said final order. Ap-
proved April so, 1886.
If theiooard are right in this belief, ie
would, i'll their opinion, be unsafe not tu
say dangerous, to proceed to open Broad
way undRr the order approved April 80.
1886.
Therear several persons who are, if MOI.
actually opposed to the opening of Broad,
way. opposed to being assessed any sung
wEatevei as benefits for said opening. Soms
of theselperSons have already employed al,
torneys 10 protect their interests, and e
may Be safely assumed that they wis
closel 81 atch the proceedings of the Couu-
Gil and NE Board, and that they Will GER
tainly and quickly take advantage of any
jurisdictional questions left open to them.
The Board would respectfully suggest thai
no opportunity be given to any one to de-
feat, or even to delay, this improvement.
when it may be easily avoided, and would
therefore respectfully request your honor