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


mated expense thereof is S37, 076. one-half of
which need not be paid into the CITY
Treasury before the contract is Let; that
real estate to be assessed therefor can
be found benefited to the extent 'of,the
costs and expenses necessary to be
incurred thereby; that said improve
ment is not asked for by petition of
majority of the owners of property to be
assessed therefor, but we herewith sendsa
plan or profile of said improvement, and
an order for your adoption if you desire us
to make the Improvement. Yeas 6, nays O.
The Engineer having submitted plan and
estimate of cost for the paving and curbing
OF Seventh street, from east end of the
Seventh street bridge Crossing the Mani
toba Railroad) to Hope street, the same
was laid over to the 10th inst, at p. 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 and 8,
Suburban Hills Addition, to width of sixty
feet, the same was referred to the Second
Ward member.
In the matter of the complaint of VIM.
Dunlap that lot 4, block 2, Ewing & Chute's
Addition to st. Paul, had 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 street OF lots 4, 5, 6. Z and s, block 3,
Ewing & Chute's Addition to St. Paul.
whereupon the assessment against said lot
was ordered abated, so as to conform to
the facts and rights of the case as intended.
1t having 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 1. 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 rights of 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 G. Drake
for "Jasperite" 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 matter 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 of the Common Council of the
City of st. Paul, Minnesota:
GENTLEMEN: The final order of the
Common Council for the opening of Broad
way street, from Grove street to Thir-
teenth (13th) street, approved April 3d.
1886, together with the report Of the Poaa-
mittee on Streets, relating to the same mat
ter, adopted by the Council at its meeting
April %, 1886, are respectfully returned to
the Council for an unqualified and an I'M
conditional final order, if your honorable
body are still of the opinion that this inn
provement (tfie opening of Broadway
should be made.
Final orders of the Common Council to
this Board directing any local improvement
to be made for which an assessment must be
made to defray the cost thereof, are juris-
dictional, and should be clear, definite, GER
tain. unqualified and unconditional April
10, 1886, this Board reported to the Coun-
Gil that the proposed opening of Broadway
between the streets above named was
necessary and proper, with proper answers
to the usual formal questions submitted by
the Council to the Board in the preliminary
orders of the Council, and transmitted
Herewith the proper final order for the
opening of said street.
The report of the Board was referred by
the Council to the Committee on Streets,
who made a report in writing to the Coun-
oil 0f
which was adopted by the Council. yeas
Is, nays 1. after which, and as part of
the same act, the report of this
Board Of April 10, 1856, above
referred to. was also adopted by the Coun-
Gil, yeas Is. nays 1, as more fully appears
from the printed proceedings of the Council
meeting of April 81, 1886.
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 Broadwayiwas based upon this report
OF the Committee on Streets, and that the
Council smay have acted upon the pre-
sumption that this Board would be IN
fiuenced, if not actually controlled, by
the recommendation of your committee, in
determining the limits of the assessment dis
trict within which the property should and
would be assessed for benefits to defray the
expense of the damages and costs to be
incurred by the opening of said street;
and it would also seem to be fair infer
ence that the Council might not have
ordered said improvement to be made, had
not the order been accompanied by the
report of your committee previously
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 powers and duties of the Board OK
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 of the question of benefits. and
upon this question its judgement ia
final and conclusive. and cannot be re-
versed by the District Court, or any other
tribunal, unless shown to be fraudulent in
TACT. or unless it is made up upon a demon
stratable mistake of fact"
The Board believe that this report OF your
committee, 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 order, is in the nature of, if not in
fact, condition to said final order. APP
proved April so, 1886.
If the board are right in this belief, it
would, in their opinion, be unsafe, not to
say dangerous, to proceed to open Broad
way under the order approved April so.
1856.
There are several persons who are, if not
actually opposed to the opening of Broad
way, opposed to being assessed any sum
Whatever as benefits for said opening. Some
or these persons have already employed at
torneys to protect their interests, and it
may be safely assumed that they will
closely watch the proceedings Of the Coun-
ell and the Board, and that they will GER
taInly and quickly take advantage of any
Iurlsdictional 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