The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1902-07-18


streets, stone cross walks of the widtl
of about three feet, and that in curb
ing, guttering and paving said inter
, secting streets, all of said stone eros
walks are being torn upland removed
a. The necessary cost Of the curbing
guttering, boulevarding and pawn,
said street intersections outside of tn,
thirty feet along the center line O
said Broad street SO contracted for il
about thirty per cent of the cost of thu
whole improvement so being made.
In order to make said improvement
as so contracted for, it was necessary
to and the defendant city has proceed
ed to construct certain storm sewers
and catch basins, not contemplated by
said contract, nor estimated by said
board of public works, in estimating
the cost of said improve ment, the cost
of which said storm sewers and catch
basins the defendant city proposes to
pay, and ais now paying, out of the
general funds Of said city, all OF
which will amount to more than three
hundred and seventy-five dollars,
which work was not awarded to the
lowest bidder or to any bidder there
for, and that no bids were ever called
for or received therefor.
In reporting that property subject
to assessment could be found benefit
ted to the whole cost and value of
said improvement, said board of
public works did not estimate the cost
of the improvement of said street in
tersections as now being made, nor
the cost of said storm sewers and
catch. basins.
There is asphaltum, other than
Pitch Lake and Bermudez asphaltum,
as available, and equally as good for
paving purposes, as Pitch Lake and
Bermudez asphaltum, and that there
are persons, firms or corporations,
seeking contracts for paving streets in
Minnesota and elsewhere, who use in
such work, asphaltum other than
Pitch Lake or Bermudez asphaltum,
and who cannot procure Pitch Lake
or Bermudez asphaltum.
That by limiting the asphaltum to
be used in said improvement to Pitch
Lake and Bermudez asphaltum, and
by other restrictions and provisions in
the specifications therefor, and by the
changes and alterations made in said
specifications by the officers of defend
ant city, as herein found, fair compe-
tition in bidding upon the contract for
said improvement was prevented. and
excluded, and firms who wished to,
and would, have filed bids therefor,
were prohibited from so doing.
That were it not that the financial
condition of said defendant city pre-
vents the same, and that no appropria-
tion by said city was, nor because of
such financial condition could be,
made by said city for the making of
said Improvement, a considera BILE ror-
ton of the expense OF making said
improvement could and ought to be
borne and paid from the general funds
OF defendant city, and such portion
thereof should not, and ought not to,
be borne and paid by the owners of
property fronting on said improvement
other than the property owned by de-
PENDANT city as aforesaid, all which
at all times has been, and now is,
we'll known by the defendants herein.
- That the expense of the said i'm
provement, fronting upon said prop
erty of defendant city, should be paid
and borne by the tax payers at large
of and in said city, and not by the
owners of property fronting on said
improvement other than said property
SO owned by said defendant city, all
of which at all times has been, and
now is, we'll known to the defendants
herein.
That because of the matters and
things herein found it was not neces-
sary proper or advisable that said i'm
provement be ordered, or contracted
for, all of which at all times has
cen, and now is, well known to-. the
defendant offcers''of said city.
That the defendants the members of
the common couuvii and board of
public works of said city, at the time
of the several proceedings mad by them
in the matter OF SAID Improvement as
herein found, did not in good faith
consider. that it, was. necessary,
proper. or advisable, that said i'm
provement be made as so reported and
ordered, or that the public interests
would be best subserved thereby, and
that said defendants did not at any
of said times, IN good faith consider
that property could be found fronting
upon said improvement or benefited
thereby other than said property so
owned by''said city which could be as
sessed for sufficient sum to pay the
expense thereof
That said contract exhibit o, enter
ed into between the defendant city of |
Mankato and said Barber Asphalt |
Paving copmany. for the improvement
of Broad street in said city herein |
found, is null and void, and of no
force nor effect as against the de-
PENDANT city of Mankato, and that the
defendant city of Mankato, its officers
and agents, have no right or power to
proceed on behalf of said city with the
performance thereof, in whole or in