St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-04-17

the commissioners provided for by
chapter 313 of the Special Laws of 1885,
have never been appointed, and there
is no board of public commissioners and
was none at the time of said pretended
board voting to condemn said, park and
there never has been such board,
Because the said act is unconstitutional.
The common council of st. Paul never
ordered OF directed any assessment OF
reassessment to be made for condemn
ing said park or desired the same in
any way whatever"
Upon these grounds the case went to
the district court. Judge Wilkin
heard the arguments as made by City
Attorney Murray for the city and
Henry James for Smith, and yesterday
filed with the clerk of the courts a
memorandum" - not decision.
Among other things this memorandum
sets for the conclusion of the court as
how the conflicting board of
public works and board of park
commissioners was created and
where their powers are inconsistent
ION the 25th of July. 1887, An act to
provide for the creation and organiza-
ton of board of park commissioners i'll
and for the city of st. Paul, Ramsey
county, Minn..' was duly approved. BY
this act, the board of commissioners
thereby created was authorized, i'll con-
nection with the board of public works
of the city of st. Paul, to condemn
lands for public parks, and the board of
public works was requested, upon the
order of the park commissioners TO
appraise or assess the damages or COM
penSation to be paid to the parties ell
Titled by reason OF such condemnation,
and also to assess the benefits to the
2m0nnt Of 10
cost of the said improvement,
as near as practicable, on the
parcels of land benefited thereby
An act of the legislature of March 1,
1887, empowered the municipal corpo-
alton to condemn land for parks, amend
ing chapter Z, which mode of proceed
ing is quite different in essential par
ticulars from the course required to be
pursued by the board of park commls-
sIOnerS." 1.-The two acts are incon-
sistent," quotes the judge. The one
provides for the condemnation by the
common council, and the other for the
condemnation by a special board of
park commissioners with the board of
puulic works. In the one case there
are checks and safeguards to the in
terest of property owners which are
not contained in the other. In the one
case the property benefit ed pays but SO
per cent of the cost of the improve
ment; in the other such owner pays the
whole cost. There are some doubts,
also, under the peculiar wording of the
act. whether the board of park commits
sioners was regularly organized" This
expression from the court virtually
knocks the West side palk silly. If
left here, there is no park, for which
some of the property owners interested
paid their assessments. The COM
mon council did convene once and at
tempt to reconcile the different views
of its members enough to adopt reso-
luton, or take other sufficient meas
ures to refund all assessments paid by
such owners. This, however, was
never done, and the matter remained in
statu quo. There has been some ac-
ton in the present session of the legis-
lature which materially affects the
validity of the condemnation of the
park. At any rate, this puts new
phase upon the subject, and West st.
Paul may have park, but it is rather
doubtful.