The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-12-24

i Green resolution relating to paving petit
/ is stated about the methods of getting up
these petitions. 1t looks as though IN a
/ large humber of instances the residents
do not feel the need of pavements until
a petition is put in circulation by the rep
resentatives, either directly or indirectly,
of the paving men or the paving trusts
From the report Of the proceedings OF
the streets and walks committee that ap-
pear in your paper II WouI t appear s Ina
the committee was afraid that they Werc
bound by the petition absolutely and IN
that report Mr.. Webster, the Ft. Scott
curbing stone man, is reported IN SUD
stance to have said that the council had
no right to state what character of curb
ing should be used that the petition ask
ing for the curling should state this and
/ that the council must follow the WISHES
of the petitioners. To substantiate this
down by Judge z. T. Hazen. Though in
petitions for paving curbing is not defln-
itely stated, Judge Hazen states that
curbing is meant to be included IN the
words paving and that it is broad enough
to cover this Interpretation, he therefore
takes the stand that the people have the
right to specify the kind of curbing want
ed and that the council must abide BY
their request the same as 1t does with
regard to the character of paving mater
iaI,
This is hardly born out by the recent
decision of our supreme court, case NO
14611-Carey Salt Co. VS.. City OF Hutchln-
son-filed Oct. z. 1905.
This was an original proceeding in man
damus to compel the city of Hutchinson
TO pave a certain portion of Main street
with vitrified brick petition had been
duly signed as provided by section 1868
of the general statutes of 1901 to pave
with vitrified brick. After the reception
of the petition an ordinance was duly
drawn up and passed by the council, pro-
viding for this kind of pavement. A sec
ond petition was circulated, which also
was in accordance with the statute, the
necessary number of resident property
owners signing, asking for the street to
be paved with bitulithic. On the reception
of this second petition second ordinance
was drawn up and passed the council re-
peaIfng the first ordinance and providing
FOR the pavement to be bitulithlc (This
ought to suit Mr.. Webster)
The proceedings in mandamus were to
restrain the paving with bltultthlc and 20
The writ was denied; and the court IN
their decision said: Whatever the petit
ton may contain as to the character OF
such Improvement must be taken as mere
advisory suggestions, which may or may
not be followed.
1.-THE mayor and council are elected by
the public they have general supervision
over the streets and alleys. they are in a
situation to know tn financial condition
Of resident citizens needs, WISHES etc
1.-The court could not assume. that the
legislature intended to place this import
ant duty in the control OF petlIlo a VINO ..l
simply represent themselves ana are IN
der no official or other obligation to pro-
tect the interest which the public have
while the petitioners in great mea-
sure pay for the improvements, yet It IS
of inheritance to the general public who
pay for pavement in the areas and
squares made by the crossing of streets
and who use the streets for business and
for pleasure.
rather hasty in turning down resolution
which was right in spirit and which spirit
seems to be embodied IN the foregoing de-
cision. Whilst it is true that the decision
was in the case of a city of second class,
still the principle laid down in that de-
cision is the same principle that is con-
tanned in the Green resolution
killed one of these petitions a few
he az nv
erty owners that the pavement provided
for in the petition was not what they
wanted. By the time the new petition
was prepared the resident property own
ers had their eyes opened and then con
cluded that they did not want the pave
ment anyhow. T. D. HUMPHREYS.