The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1904-12-14
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Some Important Business Transacted--Sub-
way in Bad Shape--Real Fire Limits
Light Company's Bills
Held Up.

All of the aldermen were present
last night al the second regular
monthly meeting of the city council
with the exception of Alderman Nee
han. who is out of the city Despite
Ithe fact thai there We're thirteen al
dermen present and il was the lStf
day OF the month the proceeding
were harmonious and passed off
without any hitch.
Tho minutes We're disposed of with
Iout reading and reports of city Off
GERS We're reeeiYei and filed
te Randall jackson Case.
| City Attorney O'Shea reported that
he had investigated the case of Jus.
tice OF the Peace Randall Jackson,
lwho was accused of some crooked
dealings, He found that the case in
| which Jackson alleged crookedness
\ was practiced was state case and
chat the city had no jurisdiction or
interest in the same The city attor-
| neys report was received and ordered
published with the council proceed
:ngs
1 Regarding Improvements.
A communication from Lansden q
issek, attorneys. and City Attorney
OShea was then read by The clerk as
follows
Ifo the Board Of Local Improvements
Of the City OF Cairo
Gentlemen
Since the recent decision OF he Su-
preme couu in regard % street inn
Iprovements We have intended having
Ian interview with you concerning fur
sher efforts 10 make improvements in
he upper part of the city, but had no
opportunity
There were two decisions Of he
coNrf in regard TO the amendment of
May r.. 1893, dispensing with the pc
iition OF property owners One was
L'flote VS.. Village OF Milford and the
ethcr Sumner vs Village Of Milford
Petitions for rehearing We're filed in
both eases and few days ago the
.court denied the petition in rne L'Hote
60 g and allowed # in the other. This
shows that the court regarded the
cases as materially different.
But he denial Of the petition for
rehearing IN the LHote case leaves
nothing to be hoped for from the SUI
preme court: and we win. therefore
have to accept the situation and pro.
coed under the act Of 1897, as amend
ed in 1899 and 1901.
The street Improvements made in
Cairo twelve or thirteen years ago
were made by what is called special
taxation OF contiguous or abuttng
property. under an act which reaulr
ga no petition Of property owners and
which, made the repor. Of the commits
aioners CONSLUSGvE as 10 the
amounts assessed against the several
lot4; but in 1895 he law was amend.
cd 20 as TO allow lot owners 10 come
INTO courl and contest. BEFORE A
JURY, the question OF the amount
Of the special tax assessed against
their los
1T WAS THIS NEW FEATURE OF
TIE LAW THAT WELL NIGH
PIT AN END TO STREET I'M.
PRONEMENT IN CAIRO
This obstacle, 30 10 speak of II. in
the way Of Improvements was follow.
ed by a number Of Others In the act
Of 1897. which RECAST almost ali
the former laws relating % this sub
iect; and now We have boards Of To-
sal improvements. petitions or own.
ers to boards. estimate. resolutions.
public hearings of the same. recon-
mendations of the council, etc. etc.
etc, all entirely new features en-.
grated on the prior requirements of
he law To such an extent is this
the case that one is tempted to say
The legislature has made he matter
o difficult that a few steps more
would have amounted 10 prac ical pro
addition This stringency or strict
ness in the act IS no doubt due, in
large measure. to eX.ravagant. not to
say oppressive. assessments In many
Of ihe cities Of the state
Tbs act of 1897 required petition
II owners only in cities Of less than
-5,eoo hut the amendment of 1898
extended the Requirement. to all cities |
of less than $4,000. and changed the |
requirement from majority TO one
half of The property represented by
the petitioners.
j. Is not az al probable taa the /
legislature. which is TO sit the first !
If January can be induced amend |
the act Of 1897 as to dispense with /
the petition If lc owners AMI yet. /
IN view Of the embarrassment caused /
30 many cities by these recent decis- !
IONS of the Supreme court II may be |
nai such an am ndmeW .ouid re |
eeive a favorable consideration.
IN view of the early sitting OF the /
legislature if may he found expedient /
10 defer action about Improvements
until il can he ascer aimed with some /
degiee of certain what the lecisla. |
'gre proposes TO do If anything. No |