Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-08-08
Public Opinion on Iowa Subjects as
Reflected in the Iowa News.
papers.
The News Of Iowa From Hundreds
Of Different Towns and Com
munities.
"A FLOATING VILLAGE.
Huntington HaWlkeye. n

The kirchner fleet, having every APP
pearance of floating village, passed
Burlington at 5 o'clock yesterday a alter
noon. Hundreds of people who saw it
coming hurried to the river front and
watched the novel craft. Pushing the
fleet Were the two Kirchner boats, the
Percy Swain and Cyclone and their
progress was very SLOW. Itrequired an
ever half hour for the boats TO run
from the bridge to the foot of JEFFERSON
street.
Z The fleet has been at work on the
government Improvements near Quincy
and still had over hundred men on
(; board. The fleet is composed of thirty
: five barges and quarter boats, which
4 are used for lodging quarters, kitchens,
dining rooms, offices, etc. Women
cooks provide for the men and the fleet
lis also provided with cows and horses.
y No stop was made here, as the kirch-
ssners wish to land their fleet at La
q Crosse, Wis, as soon as possible.
TO TEST FRONT FOOT PAVING
I; LAW.
z [Des Moines Register.l
IS "A petition to test the constitutional
sitysof the front foot paving law in Iowa
was filed Monday in the United States
district court. Charles F. Clark is the
Complainant. Polk county. the city Of
Dies Moines, John Mckay, treasurer,
John McQuiston, auditor, and Smith &:
Reed, tax sale purchasers. are made
defendants in the suit 1t will come up
sGat the fall term of the federal court.
Il The front foot paving law has been
declared unconstitutional by the SUI
preme court of the United States in a
case which arose in Ohio The decision
has been followed by the state courts
4 In one or two states, but this is the first
time the case has come before the fed-
eral5 court in Iowa.
Charles r. Clark owned half a dozen
lots on East Grand avenue. near Thir-
tieth street. When the city paved the
avenue about ten years ago MIR. Clark
refused to pay the costs which the city
and county assessed against him. The
amount of the assessment is not stated
lin the petition. 1t is stated, however,
that the amount involved in the suit is
more than 81, 900.
Upon the repeated refusal OF Mr..
s Clark TO pay the assessment the lots
were put up ut tax sale and Smith &
stlRASSuslN luS5 puI ClldSeIS. lGsCOlIl.
4 plainant alleges that he has offered to
Y pay TO Treasurer Mckay the general
4 taxes on the property, but the official
I refused to accept the money on the
ground that the property had passed
{ from the ownershipSof Clark for his
failure to pay the. paving assessments.
This was in April. 1900. Since then the
treasurer and auditor have determined,
says Clark, to give to Smith & Reed a
tax deed to the property, Clark asks a
permanent Injunction against the coun-
ty#officials to prevent their turning the
deed over to the purchasers. He also
asks that all special assessments
against the property be cancelled. a
temporary injunction is. also asked.
The ground for the petition is the
claim that the front foot valuation OF
street Improvements is demonstrations
al. The supreme court ruling is that
"a assessments shall be made in proper
ton to the benefits accruing to each
piece of property from the improve
ments. Clark declares that no attempt
was ever made to ascertain the value
OF the paving TO his propert:, and de-
mands that this be made. and the as
easement made accordingly.