Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-13

titon of a majority of the resldeht
taxpayers, and they asked for asphalt
and would listen to no other Ihe
council then took the stand that what
ever the majority on any street wan
ted they should have, and let us see
how faithfully they have carried this
out.
South Third avenue was the next
street This was ordered for brick, on
petition of the majority of the property
owners. and the council went so iar
as to secure bids, and We're ready 10
let the contract when a petition was
presented to them, which had been IN
stigated by D,. Getz and others, sign
cd by a majority of the property own
ers, asking that the bid be rejected,
and the paving changed to asphalt.
This was done in Difference 10 theli
wishes. and it was carried out, In do
ing which, the work had to be cur
ried over to the following year
Fourth avenue, between state anu
Church, was ordered. Certain proper
ty owners afterwards made vigorous
verbal protests, and asked for prlch'
but when they We're furnished WIFI "
petition and requested to sign ~, DC
ing assured that it would be chahseu
If they would do so, they refused ana
admitted they didn't want any.
",rhere were no requests for chahse
to brick on Church. State. Llhcoil''
Grant. Sixth or Ninth streets, unt'l an
ter ordered and then only by u lew
on Church street, whose object was Z"
defeat the entire project'
"NIr Sutton says, The sublime au-
dacitv. however, of constructing an
.snbaIt drive to "rimmy's sand bank,
aud woven wire fence around the I'M
used portions of the grave YARD. Oh
North Second avenue. is too rlch. Is
If too rich for the council to give
what the property owners ask WIEN
they nav for it? A majority or the
property owners on that avenue ale
working people. and not any 100 rlch.
They are not money loaners' lawyers
and professional men. They had pc
titioned the council to put IN the pay
ing to the very points named. lhes
first asked for brick. and TINS was
granted Bids We're receiver, Out 'le
lowest was so high that they got OUT
petition signed by large n'aJollly'
asking the council to reject the DID,
and order asphalt. This. too, Was cone
against the protest of the two mempe's
of the council from that ward. Inc
council did as they We're asked ano
asphalt was ordered, and constructed,
and there has been but one legal de-
fense or protest filed against the paw
ing along the entire length, and we De-
lieye the people on this beautiful ave-
nue are satisfied with the result.
ut 1y
ever watchful to see that the contrac-
tors have fully complied with 'hsir
contract is evidenced In their action
In two cases.
"The Second avenue paving, for one
half block put down late IN the season
IN too cold weather. was defectiVe.
This has been held up for year ana
half, until remedied, holding s3V'o'"
from the contractors and without IN
terest to the tax payers. W On SCUM
First avenue they took hold or ana re-
constructed the brick paving there az
n heavy expense, against strong locai
Influences. because In their Judgment, IL
failed to come up to the require
ments. 49,.
IF there are any other defects IN the
waving the council would be glad 10
know it. and have already taken steps
to find it out We are quite sure the
council will file no protest against the
appolntment by the court or any dis
interested parties of experts to make
these tests. But 1t Is not fair to place
this matter in the hands of persons
who are turning heaven and eartn TO
have some one else pay for pavement
which belongs for them to do
BYRON WEBSTER"
Colfax. Jan. -, 1904.