The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-02-26
Barber Company Will Not Compromise
With the City.
Corporation Believes 1t Is Entitled to
All or Not a Cent.
Superintendent Carpenter Denies Ger.
tain Remarks Attributed to Him.
Points Out How the People Could Have
Prevented Paving.
From Wednesdays Daily.

Charles M. Carpenter, superintendent
of the Barber Asphalt Paving company
was guest at the Saulpaugh last night,
it being his first visit to this city in
several months. When representative
of The Free Press approached Mr.. Car
penter in the hotel lobby last night the
Barber man stated that he had just taken
a run down to Mankato from Duluth.
He said he was looking around here to
see if there is likely to be any spring
work. Mr.. Carpenter stated that his
company would be ready to pave any
street in Mankato at any time the city
showed a willingness to enter into con-
tract. The present difficulty" between
the city and the company would cut no
figure at all.
Mr.. Carpenter was asked if his com
pany would be willing to enter into a
compromise with the city and settle the
action now pending in the United States
court for the sum mentioned in the mass
meeting held at the city hall a short
time since. Mr.. Carpenter replied that
his company would not enter into a
compromise. 1t would not "knock off a
dollar" nor mot dollar less than the
contract price would be accepted" The
company is entitled to all or nothing.
He considered that the paving on Broad
street had been done at reasonable fig
ure. In fact Mr. Carpenter felt that
Mankato has been given paving at less
figure than other towns in the United
States.
Mr.. Carpenter had heard of some of
the statements made at the massmeet-
ing, and he entered strenuous denial to
the remarks that he is charged with
having made to certain citizens at the
time of the letting of the contract. Mr..
Carpenter stated most emphatically that
he did not say that the "Barber company
would ram the paving down the threats
of the people regardless of courts and in
functions"
ssI did not make remark that could
be so construed" stated Mr.. Carpenter.
'T may have said "that if the company
laid the paving it would get pas6 for
it."
Mr.. Carpenter did not care to discuss
the pending action, saying that he was
not an attorney. He did say, however,
that if those Broad street people who
were opposed to the paving had gotten
out an injunction restraining the Barber
company from proceeding with the work
then the paving would not .have been
laid. An injunction was serHe6upon the
company for only that portion of Broad
street lying between Warren and Liberty
streets. The company paved the balance
of the street, performed the contract to
the Letter and he could see no reason
why it should not be paid.
Carl Taylor of Minneapolis, one of the
attorneys for the Barber Asphalt COM
pany, was in the city yesterday after
noon, in consultation with the local at
torneys for the company, Pau & Pau.
The communication received from the
committee that was appointed to try to
secure settlement between the property
owners and the company was discussed,
and Pau & Pau were authorized to
answer the committee, which A. r. Pau
Jr did this morning.
Mr.. Pfau informed F. M. Cnrrier,
chairman of the committee, that the
company took the. stand that the prices
that it bid for doing the work were rea-
sonable and fair, and thaH it was the
lowest bidder. 1t had done the work
according to contract, and it felt that it
was Justly entitled to the compensation
that it asks for. It does not. see why it
should make any concession, but if. there
is any proposition made looking toward
settlement of the case the company
stands ready to receive and consider it.
Chairman Currier was seen by Free
Press reporter after he had received the
above communication from Mr.. Pau,
and was asked what it was proposed to
do. Mr.. Currier replied that he did not
see why it was necessary to call the
committee together or to take any fur
Their steps. He realizes the futility of
trying to bring the two sides together,
and the chances are that the case will
be fought out in the courts unless the
property owners themselves agree upon
proposition for settlement to be pre-
scented to the company.