The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1902-04-11
THE CASE ARGUED
Injunction Matter is Now Up to
The Court.
The Anti.Paving Forces File a Reply
Claiming that the Other Three Bid
ders are Barber Co. Adjuncts.

The order to show cause why the
CITY should not be. permanently enjoin-
ed from paving Broad street with
asphalt, collecting assessments there
for, etc., was argued before Judge
Cray Tuesday forenoon.
The plaintiff, John Diamond, filed
the following reply to the city's an
swer when the case was called at a.
m:
"That he denies each and every
allegation. matter and thing in said
answer alleged, and contained, except
in so far as the same contains admis-
sions of allegations, matters or things
in plaintiffs complaint herein con-
tanned, and except as hereinafter spe-
officially admitted, explained or qualif-
ed.
Plaintiff admits that exhibit A to
said answer attached. is a copy of
specifications, as finally amended, as
alleged in the complaint herein.
plaintiff admits that certain bids
for making said improvement were
opened by the board of public works
on April 2nd, 1902, and that the
names of the parties bidding. as
they appear upon said bids, are the
Barber Asphalt Paving company,
asphalt to be "Pitch Lake" Western
Construction company, asphalt to be
"Pitch Lake" Western Paving &
Supply company, asphalt to be ''Pitch
Lake,: Bermudez Asphalt Paving
company, asphalt to be Bermudez.
''But the plaintiff further alleges
and shows that the said Western Con-
struction company, the Western Paw
ing & Supply company, and the Ber-
mudez Asphalt Paving company,
have their principal place of business
in Lafayette, Indiana; Indianapolis,
Indiana and Chicago, Illinois, respec-
lively, and that each of said com
panies is an adjunct of the said Barber
Asphalt Paving company, and that all
of said companies, at the time said
specifications were made, and at the
time, asid bids we're called for, made
| and received, were parties to con-
tract and agreement, among them
selves, whereby, and by the terms Of
which they wrongfully and unlawfullJ
agreed among themselves that the bic
for said work of said Barber Asphalt
company should be the lowest, and Sc
wrongfully and unlawfully agreed IL
advance the price of each of said com
panies should and would bid for the
making of said Improvement.
tAnd plaintiff further alleges tina
the same surety appears on the bond
accompanying the bids of said Barbe
Asphalt Paving company, said Western
| Paving & Supply company and sai'
Bermudez Asphalt Paving company
And that during all the time herell
mentioned there existed, and Their
now exists. an unlawful and collusiv
agreement to the effect that whereve
said companies or either of them ma
desire to bid upon improvements Q
this nature, that each of said com
panies will put in bid under sal
name for the purpose of hindering an
preventing fair and open competitio
as. between said companies, and a
other companies and corporations
engaged in. the business of sellin
asphalt for paving purposes and
paving streets with asphalt in thi
country.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays tina
he have judgment herein as praye
for in his complaint.
The argument was opened by a..
Schmitt, who was followed by j. A
FIittie. City Attorney Daley the
spoke on behalf of the city, and Nj
Schmiut made the closing argumen
Mr.. Schmitt's main argument WI
written.
The principal points covered by ii
D argument was whether there exists
public necessity for. the paving
Broad street, whether the council
t the Judge as to whether a public n
: cessity exists, whether the council hs
4 a right to order the improvemel
3 made, whether the specifications we
properly drawn, whether there wi
t open competition in the receiving
: bids, and whether the amending of Il
r specifications so as to receive bids
Q stone as well as cement curbing rails
. the cost of the improvement 80 as
: violate the charter. A number OF d
0 cisions were cited by both sides, OIL
Q or more passing on the provisions
the st Paul charter. The court ask
i several questions
Q The argument lasted from 9 a. I
, until noon, when the case was 81
r mitted to the court. 1t is expect'