The herald., 1897-09-24
DUPLICATION OF SIGNATURES
PARK COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER
ELYSIAN PARK DRAINAGE
City Attorney Dunn Replies to the
Highland Water Company-The
Lighting Specifications

the office Of the city clerk late Wednes-
day afternoon, and which appeared to
represent as opposed to that much
needed Improvement the majority of the
property along that thoroughfare, may
not, after all, result in the defeat of the
Gil. The protest was filed too late in the
day to allow of a careful examination
of it, and those In favor of the work took
it for granted for time that the propo-
sition had been defeated. 1t happens
however, that all Of the claims of the
protestants cannot be substantiated,
even by their own protest, for there are
several serious inaccuracies in the pro-
test which render the whole at least
questionable.
Early yesterday morning close ex-
animation was MADE of the signatures
on the protest, and 1t required but
short time to discover that several of
the names were duplicated. This led to
a suspicion against the entire protest,
and a more careful examination was
made by those interested in having the
work done. This revealed that may
Of the Signatures of owners were placed
there by other persons. Whether these
persons had authority to sign the names
of the owners of the property or not will
not be known until the matter is fully
investigated by the city engineer to
whom it will be referred at the next
meeting of the city council. The dis
covery of these shortcomings i'm the
protest has led to the belief that there is
yet chance for the persons who are in
favor of the letting of the contract for
the work, and they will not give up the
fight until all doubt is removed.
The duplicate signatures on the pro-
test represent 316 feet. Just that num-
ber of feet were twice counted in COM
putting the total, and just that amount
must be taken from that total to get at
approximately the correct figures.
But that is not all. In all instances
where other persons than the owners OF
the property signed the names Of the
owners an investigation of their author
ity so to do is to be made, in other
words, all such signatures are consid
cred questionable in the absence Of any
thing to show that the persons who
placed the names on the protest had any
right to do so. This makes question
able 937 feet, which, with that which ap-
pears twice. makes total of 1858 feet. or
considerably more than the majority
claimed by the protestants. 1t Is not
claimed positively that all Of these sig
natures are irregular, but sufficient
number of them are so, that the entire
protest becomes questionable. 1t Is not
asserted that any irregular means were
adopted to secure these signatures. and
even the appearance Of the same names
twice is easily explained. Several per-
Sons were engaged in circulating copies
of the protest, and in some instances two
Of these persons secured the signature
Of the same property owners. When
the work was completed the several
copies were Joined together, and were
filed with the city clerk. The appear
ance Of the double signatures was the
result Those whose names appear
twice on the protest are as follows:
M. M. Dusand's name appears at ont
place signed by George Montgomery.
with 55 feet, as being the frontage Of his
property. while in another place his
name appears per w. r. b." with So
feet, stated to be the property frontage.
The name of ]. B. Lankershim, with 30
feet of property, appears twice, and the
same Is true of the name of D. Bouttillier.
who is credited with 121 feet in one. place
and 1875 feet in another. Mrs Madeline
Wills appears to have signed the pro-
test once for herself and w. L. Wills also
signed her name, crediting her with 60
feet. C. Brodie must have made two
signatures, as his name appears twice.
Those signatures which were made by
other persons than the owner and which
will be called into question by those in
favor of the improvement are: D. r.
Alexander by II. L. A., 121 feet; M. M.
Dusand by George Montgomery and also
by w. r. B.; Juana Laronde by M
Etchemendy. 95 feet; r. c. Owens for the
Mason estate, IA feet; Schumacher es-
tate by F. G. Schumacher, 108 feet; G.
Bumller Hickey by ]. F. Bumiller, 46
feet, and Hannah c. Madden by Nolan
& Smith, 60 feet.
1t is not claimed that these signatures
are not proper, but an investigation of
each will be made. Last night was this
time limit for the filing of any protests
and if the protest now on file lacks a
majority of the property the work will
NC pIOCcCQcQ Will dS SOOu dS Tie ueCcS-
sary ordinance can be made effective.
The names which appear on the protest
and the number of feet of property each
represents are as follows:
T. Bradshaw IL; r. w. and Edna M.
Whomes, 40; Mrs. c. M. Windheim, 40;
George A. and w. B. Ralphs, 50; J. H.
Rhuart, Sc; v. Lelong, AZ; Fannie E.
Home, 12o; Mrs. J. C.'zahn. 24o; Marion
E. Heron, 60; Laura c. Hutchison, 60,
A. W. Blxby 40; DR.. M. Hagan, II; H. B.
Kendrick, per E. A. Schaffer, attorney
in-fact 50; Bartlett Bros, by A. G. Bart
lett, 65; Annie P. Spencer 43; D. B. Alex
ander, by H. L. A., ISL; Mary L. Math-
ews 80: Charles Brode, 40; Abbot Kin
ney, 535; Schumacher estate by F. G..
Schumacher, 10S; J. B. Lankershim, 60, (,
Niles Pease, 80; Charles Brodie, 40; M. A.
Mooney 116; Thos. B. Henry, 80; D..
Botiller, 121; Leo B. Crow, 8; Fred Colts
chalk. 80; Emily s. Whiting, 221a; Me-
lissee A. Brown. 25; A. r. Thompson, "a;
Frank J. Pattison, 20; o. E. Dickey, Al; !;
S. c. Foy. 142; Kaspare Cohn, 110; M. M.
Dusand, per Geo. Montgomery, IS; Louis
Gottschalk, 25; E. J. Baldwin, by H. A.
Unruh, agent, 145; Chas. A. Neyser. 100;
c. Y. r. scheere, SO; r. C. Owens. Mason
estate, 60; Nolan & Smith, 60;' 8. Koll.
Ito; J. H. Jones. 400: Mrs H. Haverstick
so; Mrs. Simon #. Glers, executrix OF CO.
tate Of d. AmeStoy. 12o: Juan 4 La Arronda