The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-03-11

of the character in question, the prepara
tion of specifications, the making of a
contract and all steps leading up thereto
are derived exclusively from the provi-
sions of said charter. That in the action
hereinbefore referred to brought by John
Diamond as plaintiff against defendant,
the mayor, and aldermen of said defend
ant, the city recorder, the board of pub
lie works and the members thereof in
the district court of Blue Earth county
aforesaid, said court having general jur-
isdiction and having full and competent
jurisdiction of said parties and the sub
iect matter of said action, the pleadings
and decision in said action being hereto
attached and made part of this answer,
it was determined adiudged and decreed
that the specifications upon which bids
for the doing of such improvements were
invited were illegal, insufficient and ar
bitrary and tended to prevent and ex-
clude free and fair competition and vio-
lated and We're in conflict with the provi-
siOns of the charter of said defendant,
and it was further determined adjudged
and decreed that the changes made in
said specifications at the time of the
making of said exhibit "C'' attached to
the complaint were material and sub
stantial, were to the disadvantage of de-
PENDANT and conferred benefit upon plain
tiff not offered to other bidders and that
free and fair competition was prevented
and that said changes were contrary to
the provisions of said charter, and it was
further adjudged, determined, and de-
creed that the said contract was null,
void and of no effect because the steps
loo IN 4bo no
terms, conditions, and the contract it.
self and the manner of execution were
wholly unauthorized by and in conflict
with the provisions of said charter, and
this defendant was forever enioined and
restrained from carrying out the terms
and provisions thereof, paying or appro-
priating any money for such improve
ment, levying any taxes or special as
sessments for the payment of such i'm
provements or any part thereof or recog-
nizing or enforcing said contract in any
manner whatsoever. That upon appeal
to the supreme court of the State of
Minnesota, the decision of said district
court was in ali things affirmed, and
thereupon became the final decision upon
said matters and the rule of construction
in relation thereto in the courts of the
state OF Minnesota.
II. That it is and has been for many
years last past the uniform and settled
judicial policy and construction of the
supreme court of the State of Minnesota
and the settledpublic policy of said state
to declare illegal, arbitrary and INSUFFICIENT
and contrary to the laws of the state,
specifications of the nature upon which
bids were asked for the making of the
improvement in question and to so de-
clare any specifications tending to ex-
clude and prevent free and fair competi-
ton, and to so declare any contract made
and entered intor for the making of pub
lie Improvements which contained pro-
visions materially different from the pro-
visions of the plans and specifications
for the doing of such work upon which
bids were invited, and to so declare any
contract made for the doing of public i'm
provement where the steps and proceed
ings leading up to the execution thereof
did not in all things conform to statu-
tory requirements and that by reason
thereof the said exhibit &c" is null and
void. And it is the uniform and settled
judicial policy and construction of the
supreme court of the State of Minnesota
and the settled public policy of said
state to hold and declare that no recov-
cry can be had in any manner whatso-
ever for work done upon public improve
ments of the character in controversy
in this action where the contract for the
doing of such work has been entered into
in manner contrary to law or is de-
clared null and void for any reason
Is. That the fiscal year for defendant
on the second Tuesday of
April for each year. That in the fiscal
year beginning ON the second Tuesday in
April, 1901, there was levied, assessed
md extended against the taxable prop
,rty both real and personal in defendant,
taxes in the amount of $45, 900 to be col
ected during the year 1902, which sum
vas apportioned among the various finds
Is follows: Current fund, $4,000; main
aiming roads, highways, bridges, culverts
md opening and constructing the same,
$4,000; for the payment of interest on
bonds and other indebted
less falling due and payable during the
Continued on Page Seven.)