St. Paul daily globe., 1890-01-09
OH, WHAT A CORKER.
Alderman Leithauser's Reply
to the Board of Public
Works.
Underhanded Dealings Spoken
Of by the Second Ward
Representative.
Public Men Are Roundly
Charged With Grave and
Important Faults.
Officials Petted and Pam
peped. and Said to Have
the Big Head.

the second ward was published YeSter-
day. The board of public works COM
planned that Aid. Leithauser had un-
necessarily interfered in the opening Of
Conway, Frances and Minnehaha streets.
Aid. Leithauser heard the letter of the
board of public works read before the
council, but said nothing. He was,
however, more voluble yesterday even
ing, and gives his side of the dispute in
the following statement:
Ii it were possible TO consider the
communication of the board of public
works in any way public document,
or the motives which inspire it public,
would consider it improper to discuss
the subject in your cOlumS, and would
wait with confidence the thorough in
yeStigatlon and discussion OF the sub
Ject in the common council, where the
matter VIII, trust, be CO., ,Sidered in all
Its bearings. But the petty spite of the
communication is so manifest, its
STATEMENTS so FALSE
and its reasoning SO weak, the manner
of its presentation to the council so
underhanded and treacEerous-no no.
tIce Ill any way concerning it having
been given to me by the beard-its
whole purpose, in fine, being to iniure
me personally and politically. do not
Intend to let the board of public works
shelter itself behind the privilege of
Office against the explanation which [
here desire to make. The apparent
purpose of the board is to convict me Of
two charges:
FlrSt-That lam trying to carry water
on both shoulders, and trying to pose as
advocate and opponent of certain public
improvements: ana second. that in
some way L have been guilty of personal
and official diScourteSy to the board of
public works. In answer to the first
charge, desire to say that the improve
mentS III question regarding the streets
which are mentioned in the coinmunica-
uon OF the board were fathered
BY MY PREDECESSOR
IN preliminary order which the council
passed in 1887, and which provided that
twenty-four streets, including those
mentioned in the communication re-
ferred to, should be extended to the
east limits of the city. [ clnnOt,
therefore, be charged with being the
original promoter of these Intended
improvements. The advisabiiity and
propriety of opening Conway, Mime
haha, Third and Frances streets, from
Book street to the city limits, were con-
sldered by the board of public works IN
several meetings held during the sum-
mer and fall of last year. The board of
| public works, in its reference to GER
tain personal letter. which the com
municatIOn states was received by the
board from me on the 26th of August.
1889, intended to give the false inn
| preston that the writer, in an under
handed and Sneaking way, opposed the
| improvements mentioned in the said
| letter. The board has not the
HONESTY AND DECENCY
| TO state that the personal letter. was
an official letter written by me as alder
man of the district in the performance
OF my duty as such alderman, and was
| openly delivered to the board at one of
its public meetings, held on Aug. &c,
1889, for the purpose of considering the
improvements which the letter referred
to. The board seems to complain that
the letter was personal" and it would
! give the public and common council to
| understand that it was also intended to
be private; this is not the truth. The
letter was an official letter, was duly of
| fered to the board and was filed with it.
know no other way by which an al
derman can put himself permanently on
record with the board of public work
or with any other official body, than by
| addressing them a communication and
| filing it with them. [ also know no bet
| ter way by which public servant, who
is honestly and
CoNSCIENTIONSI.Y STRIVING
| to do his duty, can put himself perma.
| nently on record as in favor of or oD-
| posed to any contemplated assessment
lventure to say that the very honesty
and straightforwardness OF my style OF
| procedure are the features of nv con.
duct to which the board of public works
most objects. When my communica-
tion was offered OH the Goth of August.
1889, the board of public works made nc
objections that my conduct was i'm
| proper aud dlseourteous, but immedi-
ately referred back to the common coun-
Gil the question of the proposed i'm
proyementS with my letter in opposition
to them. The records of the board will
| show that the only reason why the as
seSsmentS were not finally confirmed on
Aug. 26, 1889, was that my letter
in opposition to them might be
referred back to the common
council for appropriate action.
On Sept. 5, 1889, the whole matter, to-
gether with my communication, was by
the common council referred to the al
derman of the district. At the next
meeting OF the council [ had the entire
matter referred to The committee on
streets, knowing that they would give
the entire subject careful and conscien-
tlous investigation. L was not diSap-
| pointed
IN THIS HOPE.
for the matter was considered by the
| committee on streets at three successive
meetings. AT one of these meetings
Aid. Hamm, my predecessor, and the
| original promoter of these improve
ments, was present. At great incon-
venience to their own business and com
fort, Aid. Cullen and Gehan and Vice
President YOerg took sufficient interest
III the matter to make a personal
examination of tine land in
volyed in the intended improve
ments.. Aid. Kayanagh, who knows
Intimately every foot of property
within the city limits, investigated the
matter carefully and conscientiouSly
Aid. BlOm made careful and exhaustive
inquiry as to the proposed improve
ments. 1t was found by the committee
that with regard to certain of the prop
erty involved. the contemplated streets
would run through farms and garden
lots, and that there was
NO EARTHLY USE
for the streets in that quarter of the
city. Although the president of the
board of public works appeared dimly
Ou lIlc 6ttSt Vi Uil6 StSStOu OI lllc COlll-
mittee on streets. the board of public
works was in no way openly or officially
represented at these inquiries. 1t had
not enough activity or courage to follow
up its own report and observe its fate.
The committee on streets, after
the exhaustive examination / have
referred to, extending through
several meetings, found that there was
public need Of extending Minnehaha
street, in order that the Scandinavian
cemetery, in that portion of the city,
might be easily and safely reached. The
owners of the property involved in the
proposed assessment having assured
the committee on streets that they would
make no objection to the opening OF
Minnehaha street, cOneeding the
strength of the reason which has just
been referred to. the committee OF
streets unanimously recommended that
IT, S'retts in question should be eX
ttnded as lar as White Bear avenue ano