The daily morning journal and courier., 1897-08-14


 time again read before your honorable pody. l fully realize the pressure that IS brought to bear upon you as repre- sentatives of the several wards to se- cure public Improvements. The sltua- ton appeals to you, gentlemen, to rise aooVe questions of ward supremacy, d. vorce yourselves from what may be justly called a ward grab system and iegisiate for the welfare of the whole city, Should any of you fail of re-elec- ton because some street in your ward is not paved in violation of the law, as is proposed, the final judgment of the general tax paying public will be in your favor as against your constitu- entS.
 To the Honorable Court of Common Council of the City of New Haven: Gentlemen-I respectfully return, without my approval. to the honorable board of councilmen, in which it origi- mated, the order herewith. It was pass ed by the board of councilmen August 3, and by the board of aldermen August Il, 1S97 The order is:
 'Ordered-That a sufficient sum of money be, and it hereby is, appropriat- ed from any moneys in the treasury of the city, which have not been otherwise appropriated, to supply the deficiencies in the appropriations made by the court of common council for the year 1897, for curbing, grading, hardening and repairing the following streets and avenues: Warren, Humphrey. A.osette, Edwards, Arch, Chestnut, Lloyd and Cain streets; Edgewood Blatchley, Derby, DixweIl and Winthrop ave- nues.
 "Ordered-That the director of pub- lie works be. and he hereby is, author iZed and directed to cause plans and specifications to be prepared, advertis- ed and award contract for the improve ment of the streets named in the fore going resolution. Said contracts shall be awarded on or before the fifth day of September 1S97 upon the terms and conditions named in the new charter: the depth of said hardening shall be at the discretion of the mayor, director of public works and city engineer" My objection to the first order is that it involves taking a portion of the sink ing fund balance of $29,00O, which point is fully covered in another communica- tion of this date addressed to your hon. orable body.
 My objection to the second order is that the so-called hardening which has been gradually changed from the de- posit of a small amount of crushed stone, which was in the nature of re- l pairs, to the putting down of a sub stantial and permanent pavement eight l inches thick is in violation of section | 40 of the ordinances, which reads: For the construction of any pave l ment of roadway of said city, tWo- thirds of the total expense of construct l ing any such work shall be assessed upon and paid by the owners of prop erty especially benefited thereby" The language of this ordinance seems very plain. It is a rule of assessment upon the adjoining property owners for pavements without the exception of any. To violate it is to violate all es- tablished and common sense rules that taxation must be uniform and that no class or body of citizens shall receive special privileges at the expense of oth- CTS.
 It is no answer to say that both the charter and ordinances have been re- peatedly violated heretofore This
 does not justify continuation of the wrong to the taxpayers, which has
 reached great proportions and has aroused such general remonstrance as to make its prompt cessation impera- lively necessary.