Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1893-1895, 1893-09-20
CHEMEKEFA STREET. RESIDENTS
ENTER PROTEST.

the end, and the following statement
Of facts was unanimously adopted and
the city papers ssked to publish the
same.
We, owners Of property on Chemeketa
street, In meeting assembled, make the
following statement of facts in answer
to the following question asked some
times by well meaning people. viz:
Now that you have allowed Chemeketa
street to be improved without protest
and your property is enhanced in value
thereby, why don't you pay for the i'm
provement?"
We believe that one of the undis-
puted rights of all men is to say when
they have got to pay for a thing what
that thing shall be and the manner of
its being. Who among the owners of
property on Chemeketa street ever
asked the city council to do the work
that has been done? There are about
seventy lots and fractions of lots on
that street with about as many owners.
One would have looked for pretty big
petition from those owners before
thousands of dollars of indebtedness
should be piled upon them. The record
discloses certainly a great demand for
this work. The petition for it was
signed by just two men, and they both
city officials. The record will also show
that at that time city officials were
being paid over and over again for this
kind of work. One of them would draw
| up plans for street work and get his
pay; then another official would be paid
for the same plans. OF course they
wanted lots of this kind of a thing
going-So did Mr.. Contractor and all
his partners, silent and otherwise; and
out of this came the burning "neces-
! sity" for the so-called improvement of
Chemeketa street. When we, the own
ers, read in the papers that the street
was to be made look "real nice" we
were surprised for we already had a
thoroughfare that for years had been
graveled until there was a good road
| bed, and that was all that was re
| quired during hard times. And further
If the city wanted a gilt edged street
on vhich fast horses might be driven
one should be chosen where an electric
car was not always whizzing to scare
teams and up and down which big 'T''
rails did not stand up, menace TO the
wheels of passing vehicles.
All this being taken into considera-
| tion property owners on the street al
| most unanimously demonstrated to the
council against the so-called improve
ment, but no heed was paid to the re-
| monstrance. Mr.. Contractor had too
many partners. Their hands were going
| into Chemeketa street owners pockets
whether we desired or not. So the
contract was let on one set of plans,
and the work done on another, without
| re-submitting the changed plans, so
that property owners could get the BEN
eft of competition. The changes IN
plans, as every one familiar with the
work knows, made big money for Mr..
| Contractor q partners. We fully in
| tended to stop the work by
an injunction and quite a number of
| of those who now swell with virtiOus
! indignation and ask why the work
was allowed to proceed" know full
we'll both the why and wherefore. To
begin with Mr.. Contractor took snap
| judgment by beginning work with a
big force of men even before the mayor
had signed up the contract-before
| anyone thought he would need stop
ping. Papers were drawn, however,
and everything in readiness to stop the
work the Monday morning following
it's beginning, but by ways best known
to themselves, contractors and partners
| had prevailed during Sunday on the
party plaintiff to refuse TO proceed with
| the suit. Consultations followed, time
was necessarily lost, and in the interem
| and by starting work before legally
entitled to, the contractor had torn up
| and ruined the street, so that II then
stopped, great hardship would have
have fallen on those living along the
thoroughfare by its being rendered i'm
passable. Attorneys finally advised that
notice OF protest be given the council
against the work so that it could never
be said we stood idly by and saw our
property improved without remonstrat-
| ing. One of the present attorneys for
the city drew up that protest, and all
property owners who had the chance
| before the meeting of the council at
which 1t was presented signed IT Yet
| the work went on. IT Is doubtful II
an Injunction even would have stopped
a man who rushed at the lob before
the city officials signed the contract
or gave him the right so to do II
would have taken the militia to have
put a "quietus" on that genius o..
DO men who demonstrated to the coun-
ell against having a job put up on
them protest again to the same body
against the work saying they will
never, II they can help 1t, allow liens
TO accrue against their property on ac-
count OF the 30 called improvement?
Who have drawn up papers to begin
suit to enjoin work, can they be said
TO have stood idly by while their prop
erty was being enhanced in valueY-
never. Further, is the work done on
! Chemeketa street Of such great adyan-
tage, is It worth over $4,000 TO abut-
ting property ty?-What do we seer A
very good road bed-that was there be-
fore; no heavy grades--there never
were any; as for drainage. we see the
water conducted no where In partlc-
ular, but generally run out into small
lakes (the beautiful job Makes In front
OF peoples residences. As for exam
Die see after any heavy rain In front
OF Hon. A. N. Gilberts residence. The
street was better on before cutters
were put In 10 collect the water ioi
an entire block only 10 empty II be-
fore some ones front door.
Great stress IL laid upon the iact
that n the city Is beaten In this suit
the cost OF this work will fall on the
citv al large. That Is certainly no
=