The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1902-04-11
THECITYSANSWER
Charges in Injunction Com
plant Refuted.
Hearing on the Order to Show Cause
This Afternoon.---Affi-
davis Presented.

| The order to show cause In the paw
ing injunction suit of John Diamond
against the city came up before Judge
Cray Monday afternoon. The city was
represented by City Attorney Daley,
while Pau & Pau were present in
the interests of the Barber Asphalt Co.
The plaintiffs attorneys were Sever
ance & Andrews, Fl. L. and J. w.
| Schmitt, Harry Paddock and J. A.
Flittie.
The city's answer was submitted,
comprising eleven typewriter pages.
1t admits many of the statements
made in the complaint, but denies or
| qualities others 1t alleges that the
city's floating indebtedness is only
$21, 573 03; that lots Z and 8, block
81, city, have been transferred to the
library board that the amendment to
the specifications regarding curbing
was made for the purpose of receiving
bids on stone curbing as we'll as
cement curbing.
defendants deny that the speci6ca-
tions for said Improvement are Illegal,
insufficient, arbitrary or contrary to
the provisions of the charter of said
city of Mankato and allege that the
mayor, common council and board of
public works of said city have during
many months of the said terms of
their respective offices, considered, in
vestigated and studied the question
of asphalt street pavement. That
they have solicited and received infor-
nation from city engineers of many
large cities in the United States and
other parties who are in a position to
now about such pavement. That the
said mayor, common council and board
or public works of said city used the
utmost care and judgment in propos-
ing and adopting the specifications for
said improvement on Broad street and
these defendants believe that the said
specifications adopted for said i'm
provement are the best specifications
that can be made for same and for the
best interests Ct the property owners
of said street.
Defendants deny that 'tPitch Lake"
in the island of Trinidad is and was
when said specifications were made
and adopted the private property and
under the control of the Barber
Asphalt company and allege that said
Barber Asphalt company does not now
nor never has had any right, title or
interest in and to said "Pitch Lake"
in the island of Trinidad nor any con-
| troll of same. Defendants deny that the
Bermudez Asphalt Paving company
owns all the Bermudez asphaltum.
! And defendants further allege that the
said 'Pitch Lake asphalt can be
purchased in the open market by any
one sand defendants allege that the
said Bermudez asphalt can be purchas-
ed in the open market by anyone.
Defendants further aIlege that on
the End day of April, 1902, bids were
duly opened by the said board of
public works in accordance with the
notice mentioned in paragraph fifteen
of plaintiffs complaint and that the
following named parties put in bid
for said improvement as follows
Barber Asphalt Paving company,
asphalt to be ''Pitch lake, North
western Construction company, asphalt
to be ''Pitch Lake - Western Paving
and Supply company, asphalt to be
"Pitch Lake." "Bermudez Asphalt
Paving company, asphalt to be Ber-
mudez. Defendants deny that asphalt
taken outside of ''Pitch Lake. in
the island of Trinidad is as good as
the asphalt taken from "Pitch Lake"
in said island and alleges that the cost
of repair of asphalt streets after the
usual period of guaranty is much
greater in land asphalt pavement
| streets than in streets that are paved
with asphalt from "Pitch Lake. :"
That the asphalt taken from the
"Pitch Lake. is more durable and
not so liable to crack as the So called
land asphalt.
Defendants deny that the specifca-
tions called for general repairing of
said proposed improvement on Broad
street for the period of ten years or for
any other period of time whatever,
but only such repairs as are caused by
defects in the work or material used
or the manner of the construction of
said improvement according to all the
said specifications.
Defendants further allege that all
the provisions of said specifications
are reasonable, proper, necessary for
the benefit Of the city of Mankato
and the protection of the property
owners along said Broad street and
are such provisions as are usually
placed in specifications by cities when
letting contracts to pave streets.
| Defendants admit that the said
board of public works intend to carry
out the order of the common council
in regard to said Improvement and
report their action to the said com
mon council for approval and the de-
PENDANTS admit that the common
council of said city will approve con
tract for said Improvement providing
the contract proposed to them by tit
said board of public works is fair ani
reasonable and the contractor furnishes
the proper bonds.
Defendants allege that an assessmen
for said improyement can be promptl,