The herald., 1896-04-14
snyder MISSED A TRAIN
AND THE HARB0R RESOLUTION OF ONE
WEEK AGO STANDS ON RECORD
The Second Ward Councilman Had Written
Letter to President Teed for . Delay In
the Approval Of the Minutes, but Il Was
Delivered Too Late


adopted by the city council one week
ago yesterday still stand just as the
Herald predicted they would, despite
the additional meeting held during
the past twentyfour hours.
When the council convened at o'clock
yesterday morning, every seat was oc-
cupied excepting that Of Councilman
NJ. P. Snyder. The man from the Sec
ond ward, as has already been stated.
had gone out of town upon business of
a private character. Before leaving
he left for President Freeman G. Teed
a letter dated Sunday, April 18th, read
ing as follows:
Dear Sir: have to go to San Bernar-
dino and Redlands this evening to
get myt bid iE for supplying the asylum
at Highlands with shoes VIII be back
on the 9:4o a. m. train, Monday. 18th.
Please postpone the reading of the min
utes of last Mondays meeting until
arrive at the council chamber.
By SO doing you will oblige
Snyder instructed one of his business
partners to make no mistake but de-
liver the above note to Teed yesterday
morning. The partner states that he
became a bit confused in his dates, as
he thought that the council did not meet
untiY 10 o'clock. He delivered his mes
sage at 1915, and President Teed
| marked that time upon the paper upon
it's receipt.
| The minutes of the previous meeting
had by that time been approved, and
| the falsetto harbor incident was thus
| closed for good.
An attempt was made during the af-
| ternoon session to pass another resolu-
| tion setting forth that the one of last
week was adopted under a misappre-
| hension and under snap judgment and
that it did not express the real senti-
| ments of the council and should never
have gone upon the records. The res
| olution could not secure sponsor, al
| though every one of the nine members
of the council We're individually ap-
preached upon the subject. The
| general sentiment about the city hall
is that the indiscreet methods of the
Times is alone responsible for the fact
| that the Parker resolution of one week
| ago was not yesterday reconsidered.
| NO REDRESS.
The city attorney reported as follows:
| You have referred to me quite a
number of demands on the general
sewer fund. All of them are for GER
tain sums heretofore paid by the pc
titioners to the general sewer fund
| at the rate of 60 cents per front foot
! for the right to connect with certain
| public sewers. The majority of these
demands are from parties who In 1888
| and 1856 made connections with what
| is known as the Orchard tract sewer" "
| The Orchard tract sewer was built by
| the city in 1885 under resolution No.
339. adopted April Z, 1885. which pro-
! vided that the cost of construction of
| said sewer should be paid out of the
| general sewer fund of the city of Los
| Angeles. All parties who connected
| with this sewer We're required to pay
| go cents per front foot into the gen.
eral sewer fund to reimburse said fund
for the cost of construction. The de-
mands of Butterfield, Howard. Whitta-
ker, Burns. Hall. Boynton and Len
nox, are for the sums paid by said par
ties or their grantors for the right to
connect with said Orchard tract sew
er. They now ask for the return of
said sums for the reason that they
have been assessed by the new sewer
district and are compelled to pay an
assessment for sewer they do not
want, being already connected with
the Orchard tract sewer.
The first ordinance that I can find
that provides for the payment of sc
cents per front foot by persons connect
ing with public sewers for which they
have not been assessed, is ordinance No
| Az (new Series), adopted November l
1889, which ordinance did not provide
that in case the parties paying said sum
were compelled to pay assessments for
| sewers afterwards constructed that
said sums should be refunded to them
Ordinance No. 40 (new series). which
went into effect December 2, 1889, re-
pealed ordinance No. 427. and provided
that lin case the assessment of so cents
per front foot be paid on property 'front.'
| ing on a street on which there is no
| public sewer, and thereafter public
sewer be built on said street and said
| property be assessed for it's construc-
| ton. and said assessment be paid the
| owner of said property will be entitled
to have repaid to him from the city
Ax.1S
cents per front foot" This ordinance
was in force until May 49, 1894. when II
was repealed by ordinance No. 2144
| new Series), which re-enacts the old
ordinance, leaving out the clause pro-
viding for refund in case the property
is afterwards assessed for sewer. II
| can be seen from this that none of the
demands I have before mentioned are
for sums which were paid into the gen.
| eral sewer fund during the time that
ordinance No. 470 was in existence. and
that the parties to said demands have
haye het thf saa rgB e. mstter t tbs of law
The demand of ]. e. Murray, which
is in the form of a communication. is
| for the sum of $29 40, and was paid into
| the general sewer fund during the time
that ordinance No. 40 was in force, and
| I think that he is clearly entitled to
have the same refunded to him, he
| the same property of $3.50 since that
| time.
AS to the demands of Evan Lewis
| and w. H. Griffin, which are for the sum
| of $27 each, said sums having been paid
| into the general sewer fund during last
year and after the repeal of ordinance
| No. 40, / am informed as to these two
| cases that they were compelled during
| last year to connect with the public
sewer on Ninth street, and to pay said
| sums for that privilege, and that at the
| same time proceedings were under way
! for the construction of a new sewer on
| Ninth street, for which they are now as
| sessed and with which they will be COM
| PEELED t. connect While they have TO
| legal right to compel a refund of this
| $27, the equities are very strong in their
favor, they having been compelled to
| pay for a connection on the eve of an as
sessment for another sewer in the same
| street. which they will now have to con-
| meet with and use. In the Orchard tract
| cases the authorities are not so strong,
! for the reason that those claimants have
| had the use and benefit for ten years of
| the sewer which they were required to
| pay go cents per front foot to connect
with, and they still use such sewer and
| need not connect with the new one. OF
| course 1t is hardship that these people
| should be compelled to pay an as
| sessment on the new sewer, which thew
do not need, but the remedy was to have
| presented their matter to the council
| at the time Of the passage of the ordi-
| nance of intention, and had such new
sewer where it affects their property left