St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-09-06
DOINGS OF CITY DADS.
ALDERMEN FAVOR ISSUE or cERTiFI-
Gates or INDEBTEDNESS
TO RAISE A FUND OF $4,000.

Paying Men to Work at Clean
ing Streets and AlIeys-A Veto
Sustained = New Prohibitory
District Created = General
Grist of Municipal Work.
There were two absentees at the regu-
lar meeting of the board of aldermen
last night. Aid. Ingersoll was reported
sick and Aid. Montgomery out of the
city. a large amount of routine bust
ness was transacted, the more lmpor-
tant being given below:
Aid. Cullen introduced a resolution
authorizing the proper city officers to
negotiate and sell $4,000 worth of GER
tificates of-indebtedneSS with interest at
6 per cent, to run two years from date,
the proceeds to be placed i'll the city
treasury for the purpose of advancing
the interests of the city.
Aid. Cullen, in speaking to the reso-
luton, said the mayor had called
meeting of twenty citizens tor the pur-
pose of consulting and deviSing ways
and means to put some of the unem-
plOyed laboring men at work. Sub
committees on finance and census had
been appointed. The committee on
census was now having taken list of
those who had resided in st. Paul for
six months who had families dependent
upon them, and who were willing to
work for 81 per day. The finance
committee had found the only
available means from the city was the
uneXpended portion of the $4,000 fund
which under the charter was to be used
for the best interests of the city. AS
soon as the census mentioned was COM
pleted it was the intention to eXpend a
portion of the $4,000, which was all that
remained of the $4,000 fund, in clean
ing the alleys and streets and i'll fur
nishing other employment. The cit
liens committee was anxious to have
the resolution passed, aud as it was in
the interests of those unemployed in the
city at The present time. Aid. Cullen
asked all members present to vote for
the resolution.
60 SLOW, SAYS FRANKLIN.
Aid. Franklin opposed the voting Of
the money at this time. The question
of putting $4,000 of the city money in
the hands of a citizens relief committee
lie thought should be looked into and
how the money was to be expended ex-
planned. He was in favor of deferring
action until joint meeting of the alder
men and assembly could discuss the
matter. The time, he thought, was not
ripe for the issuance of the certificates.
Aid. Cullen called attention to the
fact that all of the votes of those pres
ent were necessary to pass the reSolu-
ton. and, as the matter was one of vital
Importance, he hoped there would be
no objection.
Aid. Franklin Withdrew his objection
and the resolution was passed.
Aid. COPELAND presented petition
FROM property owners on JeSSamine
street, asking that the street between
Earl and Forest streets. be graded as
soon as possible. The argument was
advanced that grading would give WORK
to large number of laboring men who
were now unemployed, aside from Its
being public necessity. A preliminary
order for the grading OF the street was
passed.
The chair appointed Aid. thinner
man, Warner and Copeland as the mem
berS of the joint special council COM
mittee to consider ways and means for
the employment of unemployed labor.
A VETO SUSTAINED.
The mayors veto of the resolution
directing the placing in the tax levy for
next year an amount sufficient to pay
for the lighting of University and Como
avenues, Rice, Acker. CORTLAND, Case
and JeSsamine streets, was sustained.
The mayor stated in his veto that the
lighting of the streets was now done by
gasoline lamps. The change to gas
would involve an expenditure, of about
$4,000, aud at the present time the city,
he said. ought not to eXpend money
except when absolutely necessary.
A substitute resolution was then in
troduced and passed directing the
proper city officers to place i'll the tax
levy of 1894 an amount necessary to
light the following streets with gas
lamps: Summit avenue, from GriggS to
Victoria streets; University, from Dale
to Lexington; Case, from Payne to
Westminster; Jessamine, from Payne
to Bradley; Rice street, from Como TO
Front; Como avenue, from Rice to
Union; Acker, from Mississippi to
CORTLAND, land on CORTLAND from Acker
to Agate.
A REPEATING ORDINANCE REFERRED.
Aid. Warren introduced an ordinance
repeating one passed and approved
April l, 1882, allowing the Chicago, Mil
waukee & st. Paul railway the right to
erect freight house on the levee be-
tween Sibley and Wacouta streets. The
ordinance introduced by the Eighth
ward alderman also directed the railway
company to vacate the property and to
surrender the possession of the property
within sixty days after the passage of
the ordinance.
Aid. Warren said the railway COM
pany had the ordinance passed simply
to give them the right to put up frame
warehouse for a period of two years
and had no right or title to the prop
erty under the 1882 ordinance. The
ordinance he introduced was simply to
give the company notice that the city
claimed title to the property. In suit
brought by the city to quiet title to the
land between Wacouta street and
Broadway the railroad company had
claimed the land under the right of adj
verse possession, alleging it had been
in possession for twenty years. The
courts decided in favor of the Milwau-
kee road.
City Attorney Chamberlain explained
that the case had been carried to the
supreme court by the city and the de-
ciSion of the lower court affirmed A
motion for new trial, however. had
been made, and the supreme court had
granted the motion which would
allow another trial in the dis
trict court. The ordinance intro
duced by Aid. Warren, he thought.
would have no effect on the case one
way or the other, as it referred to land
other than that at issue in the suit. The
point made by Aid. Warren's ordinance
was that the former ordinance granted
the railroad in 1882 for permission to
erect freight house on the land for
two years, if repealed before twenty
years had expired, would prevent the
company claiming adverse possession.
While this point would do under some
circumstances, the facts were that the
railroad company held the ordinance of
1882 simply gave them permission to
erect modern building on the land
They claimed to have possession of the
land at the time, which point had been
brought out at the trial of the other suit.