Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-04-19
but save the man who has
waived and also the general taxpayer
who must pay the expense of unneces-

rights, but save the man VINO mas
waived and also the general taxpayer
who must pay the expense of unneces-
sary litigation.
Col. Parker says he is con the side
of the forty-eight citizens which IS
entirely right and commendable since
Col Parker is a lawyer sworn by oath
to represent his clients and he seems
to have been doing so with ability.
When he asks "On which side are
you?" he evidently does so merely for
the sake of an argument. The Tx
is on the side of the whole people
where it ought to be, not only the for
ty-eight citizens, but the 200 or 300
other property owners having paving
assessed against them and the thou
sands who pay general taxes.
When Col Parker and Mr.. Meeker
first began this paving controversy the
T-R. was not on their side because
their clients were fighting the general
proposition to pave. They did not
want any paving at all. The Tx
wanted to see the city improved, and
said So The question of special bene-
fits was mooted one between lawyers,
and the T.-R. naturally left it to the
courts. AS a business proposition,
however, the T.-R. has believed and
still believes that paving is worth It's
cost to the majority of lot owners
against whom it has been assessed, or
at least so nearly so that the city
could we'll afford to take the risk OF
having a portion of it to pay for rath-
err than stop all paving until the state
statutes should have been changed.
However, upon the question of defec-
tive paving the T.-R. will stand with
Col. Parker's clients and go them one
better in the demand that the Barber
people be made to prove the quality OF
every block they have laid before they
get cent of money for it, and that
they be made to pay royalty for all de-
fective work or be compelled to relay,
UP to contract, all such paving.
When Col. Parker first filed his
charge of defective paving very little
had been laid and the charge was look
ed upon as a lawyers anchor to the
windward, to be sure, but now the T.
r. is ready to admit that there was
more truth in the charges than at first
appeared and the T.-R. has already
said that the past city council must
accept the responsibility for negligence
in allowing public work to be accepted
when not in compliance with the con-
tract.
But this has all been done, the paw
ing has been laid. Many property
owners want to keep it and pay for 1t II
they could know how much it is worth.
Are we going to litigate until the law
yers charge us more than the paving
cost or are we going to solve the mud
die? So far as the contractors are
concerned, they agreed to do something
which it now appears they did not do
and nobody cares how they come out.
So far as the attempts Of property
owners to make the city pay for their
paving on the technical question as to
special benefits, is concerned the T.-R.,
making few exceptions. has very lit
tie sympathy. The T.-R. still wants
paving as we'll as other city improve
ments, and so long as the law requires
the property owner to pay for 1T, the
T-R wants to see him do it. but the
T-R wants good paving, none other.
Col Parkers litigation is entitled to
the credit for doing public service in
proving that the citizens were about
to be defrauded. In calling for a wise
and unselfish policy in settling the
trouble the T.-R. has intended no criti-
cism of Col. Parker, even tho the
newspaper was not in sympathy with
the spirit in which the litigation was