Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-07-01
MAYORS VETO
BLOCKS PAVING
ASSESSMENTS
Resolution to Assess Cost of
First and Second Avenue
Work Fails to Pass
FIVE AGAINST, FOUR FOR 1T
City's Executive, Aided by Five Men,
bers of the Council, Defeats Measure
Which Would Have Taxed the Cost
of Streets Improvement to Auditing
Property owners-How They Voted.

Property Owners-How They Voted.
Backed by five of the nine council
men present, Mayor Ingledues veto
defeated the resolution to assess the
cost of the North First and Second
avenue asphalt paving to the abuttins
property owners, at the special coun-
eli meeting held Friday night. Ar
rayed on one side, in opposition. was
the mayor and his five. while opposing
them, and In favor of the resolution,
were the members of the judiciary
committee, led by Councilman Webster,
the resolution to assess over the may
ors veto was as fcllows--yeas. Arnold,
Clark, Mcbride and Webster: nays,
Calhoun, Iseman, Mcdonald, McMains.
ard Psenickl. Mr.. Sieg, the only alb
sent member was out OF the city.
The basis of the contention of May
or Ingledue, in his reasons given for
vetoing the resolution, was the failure
OF the Barber Asphalt Paving Com
pany to comply with the contract COW
ering, not only the paving. but the
curb and butter put down on the two
streets In question. That of the jul
dietary committee, voiced by Mr. Web
ster, involved a number of legal
phases having to do with past acts
oe a former council and the possible
consequences in the future, should the
city refuse at this time to order the
assessment, and then be defeated in
the courts.
Mayor Gives His Reasons.
Supported by the report of the city
engineer and the special investigating
committee, which showed that the av-
erage thickness of the binder and as
rhalt courses was "a inches, which he
believes not to be a substantial COM
plsunce of the contract, was the prin-
cinal reason given by Mayor 1ngledue
for vetoing the resolution. In addition
to this he submitted report of the
city engineer and the same committee
covering measurements of the curb and
gutter on the two streets, which show
ed the thickness of the curb TO be from
eleven inches to a fraction ever. when
the contract called for twelve. and that
the foundation ranged from none at all
to four inches of sand, when the con-
tract called for six inches of coarse
gravel or crushed rock, which he gave
as additional reasons why assessments
should not be made In closing his re-
port AND in summing up he said To
{e,, nnaSfinn
of law to call for opinions from var
ious legal gentlemen as 1T is a ques-
ton of sound Judgment on our part
When I am convinced that "a inches
of the binder course and wearing sur
face Of the pavement is 3 inches, ana
when am convinced that IL inches OF
the curb is IL inches. or that 2-lO
inches of the foundation is inches,
or that ordinary sand along street is
coarse gravel, or crushed rock, then ]
will agree with the resolution, but at
the present time / cannot see 1t that
way and hence refuse to sign it."
What Probing the curbing Shows.
Since the regular meeting when the
resolution first came up, the city en-
gineer and special committee has
made measurements of the curb and
gutter on North First and Second ave-
nues in over thirty differe mt places.
This probing in eight places shows the
average depth Of the curb to be
eleven inches, and the foundation four
inches. In twenty five other tests the
curb was found to measure small
fraction over II inches and the foun-
dalton to average 2 2-10 inches. Taxi
QeI,> re,f 70 ~ fa {,
of the twenty-five the average thick
ness of the foundation was 4-l0
inches. The contract calls COR curb
twelve inches in thickness and foun-
dation six inches in Thickness Inc
contract also provides for coarse
gravel or crushed rock foundation. The
investigation showed foundations
ranging from hank sand to coarse riv-
err sand, and IN some places no foun-
dation at all.
Committee Makes Second Report.
Mr.. Webster for the judiciary com I.
mittee, made Il supplementary report.
which further sustained the former re-
port of the same committee in Its
original stand that the proper proceed .
ure was to assess. He backed the. re-
port with number of supreme and
federal court decisions in similar cases
which sustained his contention on the
various legal phases. The report,
among other things, in lrging the
passing of the resolution, said the
committee believed u disre 5arding of
the acceptance of the paving, to be ex-
tremely hazardous; that the carrying
out of the acceptance Of a former
council did not stand in the way of
the property owners who could contest
later in their own right. and that any
thing the council might do would not
hinder private suit being brought to
contest collection of the paving certifi !.
Gates: that a refusal to ass esS and is
sue certificates, if afterwards it was
found that the contract had been sub
stantially complied with, might not
only make the city pay the heavy ex-
pense of suit, but the entire cost of the
paving; that the committee was salts
fled that the paving did not comply in
every particular with the specifica-
lions, but the committee die. not deem
it wise or eXpedient to refuse payment
on that point; lest it be unable to
prove that the contract had not been
substantially complied with
Webster Explains Curbing.
Councilman Webster gave most
practical explanation of the lack of
depth in the curling by saying that