The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-17
TO PROTECT STREETS
Sewer and Water Connections i'm
Advance of improvements.
Council Will Consider an Ordinance Max
ing This mpulsOry-A Petition for
AnneXing West Indianapolis.

At the regular meeting of the Council,
last night the Mayor in a communication
recommended that the Council pass an
ordinance compelling property owners TO
make all gas, water and sewer connec-
tons before the streets are permanently
improved. The communication was re-
ferred TO the committee on streets and
alleys, with instructions to report an or
dinance embodying the suggestions at the
next meeting. The charter gives the Coun-
Gil power TO pass such an ordinance, and
then if the property owners do not make
the connections the city may have it
done and assess the cost against the prop
erty.
The finance committee reported favorably
the ordinance appropriating $1,000 for an
erroneous assessment fund.-" and it was
passed, Messrs. Puryear and Young vot-
ing against 1t. Mr.. Young thought the as
sessment bureau should be held RESPONSE
BILE for its mistakes
The committee on public health reported
against the ordinance creating the office
of plumbing inspector and taxing the
plumbers to pay his salary. They did not
think that the Council had right TO levy
a special tax for that purpose. The or
dinance was referred back to the COM
mittee. with instructions to get the opinion
Of the city attorney on is legality.
The petition of Irwin Brothers asking the
privilege Of exhibiting their show in the
city for three days in May without license
in consideration of the fact that they had
spent so much money here during the win
ter, was referred to the committee on or
finances, with instructions to report at the
next meeting
Mr.. Young presented petition signed by
fully four hundred residents of West In
that suburb. 1t was referred TO the COM
mittee having the ordinance in charge.
The councilmen who voted against the
the impression TO go out that they are
against the Improvement of streets. They
sent the following communication to the
Council last night:
I'VE, the members of the Common Coun-
ell who voted against the Alabama-street
ordinance at our last meeting, not, as
the papers and some of the public think
against street improvements. We are for
the improvements and want to see the
Board of Public Works go ahead with
them, but We do think property holders
that have TO pay for the improvements
on their streets have rights that this body
must respect. We think Alabama street is
different from most streets, as 1t has both
of the natural-gas companies main lines,
besides the artificial gas and water mains
and the street will be torn up more or
less all the time on this account The
property holders petitioned for what we
think is a good street, namely, the best
cedar blocks laid on a broken stone foun-
dalton, instead of asphalt. If they had
merely demonstrated against improving the
street we should have sustained the Board
of Works. There was no politics in this
or threats from Alabama-street property
owners causing to vote as we did. But
as over two-thirds of them asked for cedar
blocks instead of asphalt, we voted as we
did,
This communication was signed by the
following: w. H. Cooper, George W.
Allen, John A. Schmid, Henry Magel, Oil
yer NJ. Murphy, Ed G.. Stott