St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-04-02
The WEST SIDE DEAL.
Query: Was the Agitation the
Result OF a Speculative
Scheme -?
Some Warm Arguments on
Both Sides Before the
Committee.
State Poultry FanciePs Dine
and Choose Their New
Officers.
The Academy Of Medicine
Mixes TamOps With a
Banquet.

SeulOleu IOr the second time III the cap
itol yesterday afternoon and spent over
three hours listening to the ar
guments pro and con in regard
to the disputed levee by the
lawyers appearing in the case. A great
deal has been said on this matter lead
ing to the belief that old soldiers and
widows of men who fought for their
country have been treated unfairly by
the city which acquired the property of
these people by condemnation proceed
ings, fixing the value Of the lands at far
below their actual value Judging from
the facts brought forward yesterday it
would appear that such is not the case
The property acquired for the levee is
covered by forty-four deeds. and only
twenty-five persons have signed the pc
tition asking to have the lands recon
Veyed. The deeds in the possession of
the city were presented by Assistant
Corporation Attorney Phillips, and
show that the prices paid for the lots
ran from S65 to Sl,S00. the latter figure
covering damages paid for buildings.
Among those from whom property was
acquired were Mr.. Langeyin, Mr.. and
Mrs. Costello. Mr.. Merrill, Henry LANCE,
L. FeelOng, II. Hill and wife, William
Dawson, q. w. Turnbull and wife. W.
S. Morton and wife, William FentOn,
August Capehart. Charles Schmidt,
Thomas Brady and wife, John B.Oivier,
John DOwlan, Michael Meeny, Some
of the deeds are quitclaims. while the
rest mention the conditions on which
the land was sold, namely, for building
levee.
Mr.. Ovitt, who represented the petit
TONERS, got into wrangle with Hon.
w. Z. Murray, whom he accused of
representing the Kansas City road, and
not the city. Judge Wood, who repre-
SCENTS his own interests, also took a
hand, and questions and statements
were banded to and fro, until the chair
man of the commission, Bishop Ireland.
announced that some sort of system
must be maintained, and insisted that
each side must present its case in the
same manner as in court of law
Mr.. Ovitt then took the floor and
stated that the city had acquired the
lands and made assessments for the
purpose of building levee: that it had
not done so, but had given the lands to
manufacturing concerns. and as it had
thus broken faith the lands should be
reconveyed TO the original owners. He
read letter from Henry j. Peters, who
was member of the board of public
works at the time the lands were ac-
Quired. who stated that less than the
actual value was paid for the lands, and
that the holders were induced to part
with their property on the understand
ing that it was to be used for building
levee to protect the West side from high
water.
W. p. Murray denounced The whole
affair as speculative scheme. as no
complaints had been made by any of
the property holders until some lawyers
got hold of the matter The city had
acquired the property partly to build
levee and also to give facilities to rail
roads and manufacturing concerns. If
the petitioners could prove that the
city had not paid them full value for
their lands. he would be the first to Sug-
gest that they be compensated: i but to
come forward and claim that because
the city mad not built levee the whole
length of the West side the property
must be given back, was absurd.
Attorney Phillips then presented the
deeds mentioned above, and showed by
a plat the situation of the various lots.
The city had graded the whole levce
from Smith avenue bridge TO Robert
street, and last year spent $4,000 on the
work under a law passed by the
legislature of 1889, which empowered
the city to issue 100000 worth
of bonds. The present legislature
had, however. prohibited the issue of
the balance of the bonds until 1898 In
all cases where suit had been brought
to recover the property the courts had
declared that the deeds held by the city
were valid. 1t was unreasonable to ask
that lands sold ten years ago for, say
800, should now be given back to the
original holders, who would make a
big profit on the transaction. for the lots
were worth now thousands of dollars
The city intended to build q ievee, but
could not be compelled to do it in any
stated time. and to build as the petit
TONERS suggested would cost over $780,
GOO.
Engineer Somers, of the water board,
stated that he was assistant city ell
gineer when the lands were acquired
He was then a resident of the West
side, and was known to nearly all the
opinion, the city had paid full value for
the lands, and he never heard a single
protest at the time by the property hold
ers. The city had built over one mile
of leyee, and had recently condemned
property for that purpose.
In response to a question by Bishop
Ireland, the witness stated that he did
not consider that the city had violated
any of its contracts with the property
holders. To build levee 200 feet wide
and high enough to keep out high water
would cost over $500, 600, and that would
not prevent water coming up through
the sandy soil inside the levee works.
Bishop ireland announced that the
commission would like to see the acts
which authorized the condemnation OF
the property, so that they could find out
what the intention of the city was.
Attorney Phillips promised to produce
the documents, and the hearing was adj
journed until to-day.
STATE POULTRY EANCIERs