Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1892-10-01

clients rights should he properly cared
for aud to the end that the city might
be kept free from any possible compli-
cations, at once delivered the follow
ing 10 the mayor Of this city:
BAXTER SPRINGS, KAN, Aug. Is, 1872.
To the mayor and c0uncilmen Of the city
of Baxter Springs, Kan.
GENTLEMEN: hereby respectfully re-
quest You that you take immediate action
to rescind and annul that certain alleged
contract made by you with bridge conf
pany of LeavenwOrth, Kan, for the con-
struction Of two bridges in this city; calling
your attention to the fact that the law has
not been complied with In the attempt to
contract for the building Of said bridges.
desire to state that my clients sent
their agents to this city (within the peri
cd they were notified by the city clerk
that bids would be received) to present
bids or proposals for the construction of
said bridges, but upon their arrival found
that you had attempted to let and enter
into contract for building them some
six or eight days before the stated time
had expired and in Noncompliance with
law.
My clients desire to present their bids,
and desire that the provisions Of the law
be complied with. Respectfully,
SAMUEL II. SMITH,
Attorney for st. Joseph Bridge and Iron
Co., and Canton Bridge Co.
l have learned that at meeting of
the mayor and councilmen held that
afternoon (15th) Mr.. John McFadden,
councilman, urged that they get in
side the law and obey 1t, but his sug-
gestion was not needed. Upon the
evening Of the 18th inst. the matter
came up before the commissioners and
Mr.. Young of the Missouri Valley
Bridge company was present and took
part in the discussion; upon Mr.. Nc.
GregOr's suggestion the matter was
continued until morning so that the
'city might be heard" Mr.. Young
knew the appointment for morning,
but that night he took the midnight
train and went to Leavenworth! The
next morning Mr.. Fribley, Mr.. Coop
er and Mr.. w. II. Horror came up
from Baxter and in the afternoon the
matter came up and the city had its
side of the controversy presented.
One Of my clients offered to duplicate
the work-yes, to make much better
bridges-for $500, and to enter into
bond at once to erect them as soon as
a legal contract was made with him.
The commissioners finally decided the
matter by passing the following resO-
luton unanimously:
COLUMBUS, KAN, Aug. 10, 1892.
In the matter Of the Baxter bridges:
WHEREAS, The law has not been COM
piled with, now, therefore, the board re-
sends their former action In appropriat.
ing $500 to build the Baxter bridges, and
Resolved further, That the board Of
county commissioners grant the petition
of the citizens of Baxter, petitioning for
two 30-foot bridges in said city, and pro-
coed to arrange for the construction Of
the two bridges in the manner provided
by law; provided the cost 30 the county
shall not exceed $500.
All three commissioners concurred in
the above resolution.
Attested. P. NJ. HUMPHREY,
County Clerk.
Now / wish 10 say that the resolu-
ton as first drawn stopped after re-
scinding the appropriation, but that /
urged the commissioners to add the
remainder, thus saving to the city Of
Baxter Springs the two bridges.
The remainder of the story ia soon
toll. The city fathers Excepting, l
believe, Mr.. McFadden,) utterly disre-
garded the action OF the commission
ers in which they practically said {:
"The law has not been followed, but
we will now follow it, aud Baxter, you
shall have your bridges; we will build
them, limiting our expenditure 10
5000" and our city officials whose
plain duty 10 our citizens and tax
payers was to let the county build the
bridges, took the bit in their teeth and
said by their actions, "GO tor The
result is they have gotten the city or
themselves into "The Bridge Middle"
Probably "Baxterite" is right when
he says, near the end Of his article,
"The law that is as old rs government
itself makes the city officers response
BILE for their own acts only" l shall
not take issue with him. The ''city
officers responsible for their own acts"
yes, I think he is correct /; the county
are not responsible, the
city ia not; it is only the city officers
who are-and OF course they will
meet I'll SAMUEL H. SMITH.