The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-10-16
MAY NOT PAY.
People on Quincy Street Don't
Like Paving Plans.
City Engineer Cuts Out Paving
of Intersection.
PETITION DIFFERENT.
Provided For Improvement OF
That Portion of s Street.
Talk About InvaIidating the
Bonds Issued to Pay.

Tt may be that the people living on
Quincy street, between Eleventh and
Fifteenth, will not be obliged to pay
for the new pavement which is being
laid on that street. Technically. they
| have a legal grounds for refusing &c
pay. City Attorney Spencer intimates
that such action on the part of the res
idents on that street will not be unex-
pected.
The petition for pavement signed by
the taxpayers on that street provided
that the pavement should extend to the
south line of Fifteenth street
The city engineer cut off the Fiji
tenth street intersection and made his
estimate on the pavement to the north
line of Fifteenth. He refuses to permit
the pavement to be laid on the inter-
section.
81 am sustained in this position, says
Mr.. McCabe, by resolution introduce
ed before the council by w. F. Weber,
and passed on May 8, 1901. The resolu-
lions provides that the city engineer, in
making estimate on pavements, shall
leave off all unnecessary street inter-
sections"
The contractors who are doing the
work, Messrs. Ritchie and Ramsey, in
ton be fulfilled, and the pavement laid
to the south line of Fifteenth
Mr.. Richie says that if the terms Of
the petition are not strictly obeyed, the
improvement bonds issued to pay for
the pavement are invalidated. These
bonds have been sold to Splitter & Co,
of Toledo, Ohio. who bought an $4,000
lot of which the Quincy street bonds
were a part.
City Attorney Spencer does not agree
with Mr.. Richie this point The
bonds are all right" he says. They
will not be affected, whichever way the
difficulty is settled. But it is question
able whether the people who petitioned
for the pavement can be forced to pay
for it, unless the exact terms of the
petition are complied with. The courts
lay great stress on the petitions in such
cases.
This same situation was UP before,
and 1 told the council then the way it
should be handled. It was in the case
of Fillmore from Fifth to Sixth. The
petition called for the pavement of the
intersection. The council had previous
ly passed the Weber resolution instruct
ing the city engineer to leave off all un-
necessary intersections, for which the
city has to pay. / told the council that
the resolution could not prevail over
the petition, and the result was that the
people out on Fillmore prepared an en-
tirely new petition. emitting the inter-
sections 1 am of the opinion that the
petition will in all cases prevail over
the general resolution, if the case
should get into the courts"
Just how the tangle can be straight
ened out without encountering techni-
cal legal. points is a question which has
not yet been decided by the city attor
ney and the city engineer. Whether or
not the city engineer can change his
estimates is a difficult question, be-
cause the bonds to pay for the work
have been issued and sold, and no more
money is available, unless the council
can find a way to take it out of some
of the funds. 1t will cost $500 or $500
to pave the intersection.