The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-03
ROSA j. GRIZZLIES PLANT.
Caustic Communication That Was
Carefully Kept Under Cover.

A communication was presented to
the board of aldermen at the meeting
Tuesday night and referred to the COM
mittee on streets without reading. The
paper signed by Rosa j. Gribble, by
her attorney Edwin Gribble, sets out
the following:
In September, 1895, an order was passed
by the council directing the placing Of
wooden sidewalks on harrington avenue and
two other streets. In accordance with this
order, the board of public works sent the
petitioner an order to build the sidewalk in
front of her property within limited number
of days or the city would build at her
expense In obedience, the petitioner in
structed Reese, the city contractor to put
down the walk which he did at the petit
toner's expense and within the limited time
and cost $2450 Petitioner further states
that she subsequently learned that Mr..
Markham, without any notice to the petit
toner, at the instgation Of malicious neigh
Dor (which Mr.. Markham admitted). changed
said order to effect only petitioners property
Ia special order being needed for that purpose)
an action without precedent in the city~or in
any other city in the United States. Petit
toner claims that Mr.. Markham acted wrong
fully and unjustly and when spoke to about
1t would give no satisfaction Petitioner fur
Their states that after said walk had been
down five days, Wilson, first assistant city
engineer, spitefully and in a malicious man
ner sent a gang of eight men with an in
spector with peremptory orders to rip up
it. The men were warned not to touch it
until the matter could be investigated. They
replied they had their orders and should do
it, which they proceeded to do in the most
brutal manner laughing and jeering at petit
toner. The eight men, with pickaxes, split
up and destroyed the planks and then threw
them in the street. Then a man by name
of Curtice, an intimate friend of Wilson,
proceeded to put down one of his cement
walks in its place, charging nearly double
what others had offered to do it for. Petit
toner AYERS that two different contractors Of
fered to do the work for $40, whereas Curtice
charged $3.50. Petitioner went to the city
treasurer and asked when judgment would
be asked for and was told 1t would not be
until the opening of court in October. Rely
ing on this statement, petitioner waited until
the fall term Of court and then learned that
judgment had been asked for and obtained
in July and no notice had ever been given
Petitioner. Petitioner looks upon this as not
onIy hardship. but most disgraceful act.
She now asks that, if possible, the council
modify the charge and by resolution reduce
value paid for the walk to $40, which is the
amount other contractors offered to do the
same.
about the case, said the order had come
from the council first that wooden
sidewalk be laid in front Of the property
owned by Mrs. Gribble. After this had
gone through 1t was found that a mis-
take had been made and that cement
walk was to be laid as all other proper
ty on the block had cement walks. An
other order was put through directing
cement walks laid. After the usual
time had elapsed, the city engineers
office was ordered to assist the contrac-
tor and a cement walk was laid in front
Of the property. Curtice, he said, was
the contractor doing: this work at the
time for the city, and that was all he
knew about the matter,