The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-30

The board. of public works is re-
CURED to ascertain If the property owners
want an improvement and how it should
be carried out The board is relied upon
to see that the wishes of the property
owners are considered and carried out.
The council supposed at the time the
final order was passed that the owners
had been heard, and in this way the or
der for paving the street with brick.
from College avenue to Front street,
passed both branches of the council. The
board of public works did not give the
property owners a fair hearing. There
IS an unwritten law that the people who
pay the bills should have something to
say. The great majority of the resident
owners all say that the usual postal card
notice was not given in this case. Be-
fore putting on the owners burdensome
assessment like the proposed one the
property owners should be heard. Every
one Is interested III having these hearings
conducted fairly. 1t may be that this Is
an irksome duty for the board of public
works. but this is what the board is for.
1t Is an arbitrary act to let contract
for $4,000 worth of work without giving
the property owners a hearing, and it
shocks our citizens who object to being
deprived of their property without
hearing. The kind Of treatment the cit
liens want is not that given the
LAMBS BY THE WOLF.
nor do they expect to have to come in
and hear the words, Have you anything
to say why sentence should not be passed
en- you? when they have had no hearing.
The entire matter should be commenced
over again, and the steps done properly.
by the board of public works. It should
be done so that II a man on Rice street,
between College and University avenue.
wants asphant laid ON the street he can
have a chance to say so. The new or
der should order the paving of the street
with a pavement which is appropriate
to the particular part of the street. Some
Of the property owners desire asphalt
on the street between College and Uni
versity avenues. Those north of Uni
vensity avenue. 1t is claimed, want brick.
Both should have a hearing. The only
fair way to do Is to commence over
again what has been wrongly done"
Hitler Horton, attorney for Fielding d
Shepley whose bid Is the lowest for the
paving of the street with brick, was next
heard from. He said he represented
| those who favored the street being paw
! ed. He said he believed that the board
of public works had acted strictly in con-
| formity with the law and IN all fairness.
The board had done all 1t could do. It
street to drift along for two years, and
when the order came from the council to
pave the street with brick 1t obeyed or
ders. It was childish to say the owners
had no hearing. The board gave the
hearing required by law, and also the
notice required by law. Ii the charter
was unfair it should be amended, but 1t
must be assumed that the law had been
complied with by the board. He had been
adx NV ba hOa rH of
| that petitions were on file showing that
| the property owners between, College and
| University avenues favored brick, and
| that owners representing 1,700 feet
| had signed this petition as against 1.20O
| feet for asphalt. He also understood
| from the board that the reason brick
was wanted on the street was that as
phalt cost $40 per square yard, while
| brick could be laid for S1.S0 per square
| yard. This was case of justice after
| fair trial and hearing, and not case of
| justice after the sentence, as had been
stated by Mr.. Taylor. 1t was case
where the criminal had been sentenced
after a fair trial, and had then declared
he would go to another court
l. Assemblyman Thompson thought the
people living between College and Uni
| versity avenues who wanted asphalt
had no right to prevent the owners north
,of University avenue having brick, which
was cheaper than asphalt, and what they
wanted. 1t would be wrong to annul
! the order and then make the owners pay
| a higher price for brick.
/ Mr.. Taylor, in reply to Mr.. Horton and
| to the point made by Mr.. Thompson, said
| rs per cent of the names on the petition
| presented was of owners north of Uni
| versity avenue. 81 was in hopes" said
| Mr. Taylor, that Mr.. Horton would not
/ 49, L, \ L. Engx I,0fa
ing before the board of public works. 1t
is laughable, the statement about there
having been a hearing before the board
| of public works.
BOARD COULDN'T HEAR.
.Six weeks ago 1 presented a petition
| to the board, which requested that the
pavement between College and University
| avenues be changed from brick to as
| phalt. At that time a majority of the
! owners of property between these points
| were on the petition and appeared before
| the board. The statement made by the
| board at that time was there was hardly
| time to make such change. That was
| six weeks ago, and yet nothing has been
| done by the board in the month and
half Later 1 was told there was petit
| stion, signed by large number of owners,
| asking that brick be laid. Although ten
|
| to request that asphalt be laid on that
| part of the street between College and
| University avenues, there was not a sin
| gle owner present at the hearing to speak
| for brick. The alderman of the Ninth
! ward and Mr.. Bell. local agent for the
| company which sells the brick, both spoke
| eloauently and advanced the idea that
brick was the best pavement to be laid
| on the street. This, it appears to me, Is
A IL. H.
/ the almost unanimous outburst on the
| part of the property owners for brick was
not so unanimous. after all"
| Assemblyman Thompson said he wanted
| to hear from some of the owners, outside
1 of the paid attorneys.
| President Pottgieser, of the board of
| public works, called attention to the point
| made by Mr.. Horton, that the railroad
| tracks would take up all but a small
| strip of the street on each side If asphalt
| was used.
Assistant City Engineer Wilson said the
| question of brick cutters did not cut
| much figure in the proposed improve
ment.
George Gerlach said he knew about the
street being paved, having seen the no.
tice in the official paper He favored
brick, and for this reason did not appear.
If there had been anything wrong, it was
done by those favoring asphalt.
Patrick Keigher said he had lived and
owned property on Rice street for thirty
years, and the first he knew of the brick
paving was when the advertisement for
bids was published. He did not care what
the street north of University avenue was
paved WITH but he wanted asphalt be-
tween College and University avenues
The property owners should have been
consulted and he considered it an out
hot nba1f 81 he
said, was cheaper than brick, for the rea-
son that a ten-Year guarantee went with