The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-02-12
Meeting of Tax Payers Develops
Strong Sentiment This Way.
Committee Appointed to Try to Make
An End of Paving litigation
Property Owners Express Themselves
Freely About Broad Street.
Meeting Recommends That Certain At.
torneys Be Employed.
From Tuesdays Daily.

From Tuesdays Daily.
The meeting of taxpayers at the city
hall last night, to consider the suit of
the Barber Asphalt company against the
city of Mankato, developed quite a senti-
ment in favor of effecting settlement
with the company if it can be done on a
basis considered reasonable by the prop
erty owners, provided the city will pay
for the paving of the intersections of
Broad street and the portion in front of
city property.
The meeting was we'll attended, a
large proportion of those present being
owners of property on Broad street. j..
B. Richards, president of the Mankato
Business Mems association, presided, and
the meeting speedily got down to bust
ness.
Mr.. Richards stated the object of the
meeting, saying that it was desired to
put up strong defense in the suit. They
had all of the confidence in the world
in the city attorney, and nothing said
or done would reflect upon him. He un-
derstood that the council had authorized
him to obtain assistance if necessary.
j. p Schweitzer asked why the meet
ing had been called, was it to settle, or
to see about help for the city attorney
The chair explained that it was to con-
slider the matter of obtaining assistance
for the city attorney. Mr.. Schweitzer
thought that if fight was to be made,
older heads should be employed.
George Pond asked whether any prop
company to settle. There was no ans
wer to this, and Mr.. Pond said that if
there was any way to settle the matter
it should be done. Broad street was the
only decent one in the city and should
be paid for.
DIR. Andrews said that most of the
citizens believe as Mr.. Pond does. He
hoped that no action would be taken
looking like reputation. The question
was who was to pay for the improve
ment. The tax payers at large do not
feel like paying for it. The property
owners whose property is benefited
should pay for it. He was willing to
pay his share for the improvement Of
Second street He offered the following
resolution:
Resolved, that the citizens and bust
ness men of Mankato in massmeeting as
sembled express the wish that a commit
tee of three taxpayers and residents of
Third street, Mankato, ask the Barber
Asphalt company to send committee
representing their interests to Mankato
to meet the citizens and property owners
on Third street for the purpose of effect
ing a settlement with that company,
provided such settlement can be made.
The resolution was seconded by A. M.
Stein.
DIR. Andrews said that it would save
the property owners at least 25 per cent
in the end if a settlement was made,
provided they have to pay for it. He
thought that the company would send a
committee.
A. G.. Meyer asked whether DR.. An
drews had any reason to believe that the
Broad street property owners were will
ing to pay for the improvement.
DIR. Andrews replied that he did, be-
cause they were good, honest citizens,
and do not want something for nothing
E. I. P. Staede said that he believed
that the company should have pay for
the work, but he did not think that
Broad street should pay it all. The city
had guaranteed to pay for the intersec-
tions, and unless the city is willing to
do this now, he was for fighting to the
end. The company has done good job
and every citizen was proud of it. Peo-
pie from other parts of the city who
have carriages have the privilege of the
street more than residents on it who
do not have carriages.
w. N. Plymat said that the city is face
to face with very important law suit
and it is we'll for us to see where we
stand. He reviewed the various CON
tentions during the suit in the state
courts. The supreme court had held that
the council had power and authority
to make the contract, and we know
now where the council stands. The trou
BILE was that the city did not make the
contract according to law. Unfortunate
Iy the company was not made party t.
the action brought by John Diamond
The city attorney made strong effort
to have the company made party tt
the suit, but the property owners op
posed this and defeated it. If it hae
been made a party the whole matter
would have been disposed of in the state
courts. The decisions of the state court
will have no weight in the United States
court, for the case there will be tried
before a jury, and there is quite