The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-06-13

that has been left to the Judgment and
discretion of the mayor; that in a num-
Der of instances within the last two
years the mayor has not appointed ap-
praisers in such cases until many
months after the passage of the reso-
luton declaring the necessity for the
improvements.
Further answering said petition and
writ said defendant says, that he has
never refused to appoint said apprais-
eTs, nor has he at any time had any
intention of falling, refusing and neg
| lecting to appoint said appraisers at
some future time; that the first meet
ing of the council at which said ap-
! pointment might have been legally
other meeting of the council held sub
sequent to the passage of said resolu-
lions was May Is, 1904, at which. time
the time fixed by law for filing a re-
monstrance had not passed.
said defendant further says, that no
general public interest demands the i'm
mediate appointment of said appraisers
and that the only parties who are urg-
ing and insisting on immediate action,
are certain property owners who expect
to be directly benefited financially by
the Improvement of said street and
other persons who are contractors and
who expect to bid on the work when
the contract is let; that in the judg-
ment of this defendant there has al
ready been let more paving work than
can in all probability be completed dur
part of the contracts let during 1908
have to be completed during the pres
ent years.
Said defendant further says. that he
expects and intends to appoint said ap-
praisers some time during the months
of July and August, 1904. and that in
not making said appointments at once.
but Withholding them to some future
time as above stated he is exercising
his judgment and discretio for what
he considers to be the best interests of
the city of Topeka and the best inter-
ests of the taxpayers of said city
Mr.. Spencer embellished the answer
with few remarks to the court. in sub
stance the same as the allegations of the
Hazen said in part: .',The only question
before the. court is whether this return
shows sufficient reason for the mayor not
to act. 1t is shown that it is the duty of
the mayor to appoint appraisers and this
suit is brought to determine whether
there IS sufficient reason for his not
making the appointment. The court viii
take into consideration the Tune neceS-
and how long it would take will not re-
quiure great INVESTIGATION This seems to
follow his policy or the policy of the
council. Although the council acted, the
mayor refuses and wishes to delay until
July or August It would take him two
minutes to make the appointments Inc
peremptory writ will be allowed and the
mayor is ordered to make the appoint
ments Immediately.
Under the circumstances" said Mr..
Spencer, L made the best excuses could
II see YOU did said the court.
What will you do?" was asked of
Mayor Bergundthal
once he replied. But it won't end it.
l can veto the contract for paving.
And them"
Then there will have to be nine votes
in the council to pass it over my veto.
At noon Mayor Bergundthal announces
that he would name Samuel Dolman. j.
NJ Miller and William Henderson at to-
nights meeting of the council as the ap-
praisers for Twelfth street.