St. Paul daily globe., 1891-08-22
It Is Decided to Readvertise
for Bids for the Removal
of Garbage.
No Action Taken in Regard to
the Azotine's New
Site.


Ger Hovt, President |. g. DOnnelly and
Attorney Holman. of the Azotine COM
pany, and a number of attorneys repre-
senting firms who recently bid for the
contract for the collection and disposal
of the city's garbage and dead animals.
The ball was SET rolling by the chair
man reading the following letter from
! the city attorney:
! The contention of the Azotine company is,
| that by reason Of the contract relations eA-
isting between the said company and the
! city. tWould be improper and illegal for the
common council at the present time 10 enter
| into a new contract for the disposal OF gar
| bage and dead animals. 1t seems proper TO
| me, under your instructions, to CONSIDER
! briefly the grounds of this claim.
The company advances the proposition
/ that the passage of a certain resolution by
/ the common council fOrbidding the inspector
| Of buildings from issuing building permit
! for the reconstruction of the plant. which
| was destroyed by ire, has prevented 1t from
| carrying ont its contract | am unable to un-
/ derstand how the said action OF the council
! is in any way material in the consideration
: of the legal relations between the city and
| the company. 1t would have been perfectly
! proper and competent for the company
/ in its contract with the city TO have
! nrOYided against the contingency OF being
| prevented by fire, or any other cause, from
| performing the services speclned ID lis con-
| tract Such provisions are common features
| of contracts, and the omission OF the AZotne
| company to properly protect itself can In no
| wav be urged in this inquiry as a legal argu-
| ment against any right which the city may
| claim under the contract
| With regard to the resolution of the coun-
| Gil fOrbidding the issuance of a building per-
| nit: | am Of the opinion that the said reso-
| luton is in no way factor in the cOnsIdera-
! ton CT this question. 1t requires but very
| simple examination into the laws relating to
| the powers and duties of the common coun-
| oil q, 10 fr1c Of kUIl6iDUS
| tain that the resolution is entirely null and
| void. 1t is the duty of the inspector of build
! ings to issue building permits forthwith on
| the tender of the legal fees and of plans
| drawn in accordance with the building laws
| and ordinances. 1t is not for him to de
termine or consider 10 what use building
may be put after its construction. Neither
| has the common council any such power IL
| would not be cOntended for moment IN
| court of law that the common council, by
resolution directed 10 the inspector Of build
| ingS. could prevent the issuance to MI.
FleishmaD of a building permit for the con-
struction of q residence in this CITY, the re-
! quirements of the law as to fees and plans
| having been first compiled with by MN.
| Neither would ii be cOntended that the IN
| sDectOr of buildings would be warranted IN
such case in refusing to issue permit But
| the power of the common council ana OF the
| building inspector, in relation to permits for
residences and for business buildings, are
| Identical.
SO far as the reconstruction of the Azotine
plant is concerned. the Azotine company has
always had ana still has the night to COM
mence mandamus proceedings against the
inspector of buildings to compel the issuance
of a building permit. There can be no doubt
that such an action would be speedily sue
cessful The resolution of the common
council therefore. which is complained of is
as immaterIal in this inquiry as would be q
similar resolution passed by the chamber OF
commerce
NV regard for the sagacity of the gentle
| men who compose the AZotlne company Is
| such as to cOnrince me that the failure OF
the company to take legal measures to secure
q building permit should be attributed 10
more weighty reasons than ignorance OF
| law Examination of the contract dlScloses
| the following provision: 1t is hereby
= further agreed and understood by and OF
| the part of the party of the first part that IL
! case the plant hereinaboye mentioned to be
| by him erected for the purposes above specl
, | fed shall become a nuisance. and shall De
! | 50 determined by the courts or be detri
: | mental to health or otherwise offensive t(
| the inhabitants of the vicinity where located
then and in that case the use thereof for the
, | purposes aforesaid shall be discontinued
! theTeat and said plant removed within sixty
. DAYS thereafter to and the same shall be relO
q | Gated at different point and place to be ap
! proved by the common council of the city O
81 Paul. the same there to be used Tor INT
r | purposes hereinabOve specified"
: II plainly appears that under this pr0Yls
y ion the common council had full power t
I cause the removal of the AZotine plan
: merely on proof being made that is was of
. | feusive to the inhabitants Of its Vicin
) ! ity. In the event of the reconStruetiOl
i of the plant on its former site, the Azotln
company would be in constant jeopardy o
] the enforcement Of this provision. Nhll
the AZOtine company might successfully Gle
| fcud an action brought in court TO abate II
. pant as q nuisance on the ground that ]
u was dangerous to the health and injurious [
Il the property of the neighDOThOOd, but sign
q evidence would be required should the CON
mon council. under the clause just quoted
demand its removal for being offensive"
am constrained 10 believe that knowledge o
this provision. rather than any action take
bv the inspector Of buildings or the commo
n council, has prevented the reconstruction c
the plant
# It has seemed proper TO me to conside
4 somewhat at length some Of the legal prof.
- | OsiuonS of the communication under cOnsiC
re ! Grafton, because since the destruction OF III
20 | Azotine plant they have been advanced {
freouent intervals with more gravity tha
-, | their merit deserves. ii Is my opinion. nov
u ever. that although the reasons advanced D
~ the Azotine company in its communicating
te are insufficient. its declaration that 1t Woul
l,Gi be improper at this time for the city to col
III tract for the disposal of garbage and dea
animals deserves the serious considerable
of your honorable body. The present col
tract for such disposal made with Henry
~ Fleishman, covers Il period of time of ti1
- years from June, 1889. Il is my opinion TIL
0' the present contract has not been terminate
either by abandonment on the part of Il
company or by such breach on its part
would justify the city in holding the contra
ne 10 be determined. 1t would be unsafe, in II
opinion. for the city to proceed on the q
sumption that this contract is te
as minated without first causing Il
~ garbage and dead animals to
II offered at the works of the AZotine eompal
IN to be treated as in the contract provide
&C | Failure to comply with such demand for al
considerable length of time on the part
Is a. ,af yvOrlN work brpSi
en of its contract, and the city would be az
>, not only to enter into new contract b
u. also to hold the AzOtine company for dan
ile ages for such breach. Under the offer OF 4
M company, however, there is no need OF SUI
he | extreme measures. 1t expresses It's Wlllln
no ness to carry out its present contract at
re plant TO be constructed at new locatlo
m and under all the conditions OF said oontrat
~, 1t would seem fair and proper that sneh off
III be accepted. advise, in view of the tol
nd going, that new bids be called for for I
lie collection of garbage and dead animals to
e. delivered at the said plant.
After the reading of the letter NJ
McCafferty said that inaSmuch as Il
es city attorney had decided that the co
90 tract with the AZotine company for di
posing of garbage still held good, th
il would be fair to hear the genIlew'
who had recently presented bids for Il
on collection and disposal of the same.
ar Attorney Willrich. on behalf of Il
ne Minnesota Fertilizer company, stat
a. that his clients had made 4 bid of S9,5
alf | which included the disposal OF garbag
ito Ii they were required to simply cole
and deliver to the AZOtIne they won
like to know where they would ha
. to deliver the garbage at. AttOrn
Holman. on behalf of the AZotine col
pany. said that the company now h
its works located at South st. Paul al
in accordance with its contract
asked the city to approve of that
eality.
Assemblyman Minea - What rig
have we to approve of this loeati
a Which is located outside the city.
never heard of such thing. III