Arizona republican., 1895-06-15
Who Are COmpetent to
 Sign Them?
A New Question Raised in the
 Council Last Night.
Concerning the Proposed Change of Grade-The Merchant TaiIors
 on Hand Again.

The city council met lsst night ir special session primarily to listen to protest against proposed ordinance embodying recommendation by the city engineer for the re establishment of grade on Washington and Firss and Second streets near their intersec- tion with Washington.
 The petition represented that the grade at the described points was al. ready too high by three inches and that the proposed ordinance increases it to height of six inches and the damage of property owners on Washington street and in the northern part of the city.
 City Engineer Hancock was out of the city and the matter was lad over until his return.
 Another matter was brought up with petition for an artificial stone side walk on both sides of Washington street between Second and Seventh streets. A little more than 2,900 lineai feet are em braced in the proposed inn provements. The petition was signed by owners of property representing a little more than half and enough to force the improvement. Among the signers were property owners on the north side of Washington between Second and Third, section of 300 feet already paved. A question as to their right to sign the petition WAS p-ecipitated by Dr. R. B. Lighjburne, a property owner further up the street and a gentleman who seems to be able to control any rabid desire he may have for artificial stone sidewalks.
 In the rush and .bustle of municipal Improvements within the last two years this question has been entirely over looked. It rests upon g certain con- struction of the law, which gives tc owners of property along the line of the proposed improvement the right to pe- tition for 1t. The question then Is: Is an i'm provement on the opposite side of the street contiguous" within the in. tent of the law? The council is inclined to believe that it is, and that at any rate such signers, who having previously improved in front of their own rrop- erty, ought not to be punished for their voluntary enterprise by belng denied the privilege of petitioning for benefits which they would certainly have had the right to psti.ion for if they had be- n l iess enterprising.
 | A long argument YVES made by Dr. Lightburne in support of the new found obstruction to the improvement 6 and R. c. Lowell on the other hand ao- dressed the council believing that the law did not intend that the benefit to property from the laying of sidewalk in any block should be confined wholly to one side Of the street. The matter was at length referred 10 the city attorney to prepare an opinion to be submitted at the next meeting of the councii.
 4 delegation of merchant tailoys was on hand to See something more about that license. There was 6 lengthy but informal discussion in which the city attorney declared that the city was em- powered to i'm pose not only the licenses included in the ordinances but could licenee all occupations, many of which
 are not now covered by the ordinance
 No definite action was taken but the
 council seemed to be of the opinion that to strike out one feature of the or
 dinance meant @ consistent destruction of. the whole ordinance.
 The subject was at length referred to the ordinance committee and the coun-
 cil adjourned until next Monday night.