The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1907-05-09
Mr.. Metsker Contradicts Himself

ready caused the council to adver
tise a second time on two improve
ment resolutions, thus wasting th'
money of the taxpayers of the city.
Mr. Metsker answered this demand
in the Independent of May 1st in al
article entitled Double Advertising
Expenses" Mr. Metsker's answer is
mo one has said that the second pub
lication has yet been made" Yor
| say, Mr. Metsker, that no one has
said that the second publication ha:
vet been made? You certainly won
stultify yourself by denying what yot
say in the Iendependent.
Now if we prove by your own
statement that you did say. that a
second publication had been made or
two improvement resolutions, wha,
will you have to say to that? Now
Mr.. Metsker listen to your own
words, published in the Independent
of April 26. They are as follows
This conduct on the part of the city
attorney is even more to be con-
demned because it has already caused
the cornell to advertise second time
on two Improvement resolutions
thus wasting the money of the tax
payers of the city" In the Indepen-
dent of May 1. you make the positive
statement that no lone has said that
the second publication has yet been
made" Now in the face of these
statements has not Mr.. Metsker laid
himself open to the accusation OF
self-oontradiction?
He may think that the people are
too dense" to see that by these con-
Trajectory statements he has proven
himself to be wholly unworthy OF
any further consideration or belief
Here the public has it, that Mr.. Nets
ker on April &c, charges emphatically
and unequivocally that advertisement
has already been made on two i'm
provement resolutions, and on April
25 he says ATTY. Hess advice has
already cost the taxpayers interested
in the sewer improvements in Norh
Plymouth to pay twice for the ad-
vertising." Now in the face of these
charges through the columns of the
independent Mr. Metsker has the au-
dacity to say to the public in the In
dependent of May that "no one has
sad that the second publication he's
yet been made" Are not these con-
Trajectory statements sufficient to
convince every body that Mr.. Nets
ker has stultifed himself in this mat
ter!
The parties who want the sewer
improvements in North Plymouth
are doubtless convinced by this time
that, if there is any obstruction in
these improvements that it will be at
the dictation of Mr. Metsker in order
that the may monopolize all the city
advertising, instead of dividing it up
as the council had been doing. II
there is any blocking of improve
ments in the city the responsibility
will rest on Mr.. Metsker, for all inn
provement resolutions thus far have
been passed by unanimous vote ol
the council Such a "dogged' course
on the part of Mr.. Metsker in order
that he may have all city advertise
ments, is already condemned and
| generally resented by the public.
But Mr.. Metsker says this proceed
ure is illegal" and that the bonds
for the same would be worthless.
Does Mr.. Metsker think for mo-
ment that there is any one SO foolish
to accept his opinion as to the legal
| ity of this procedure in the face o.
the decisions of the supreme court
of our state, which cited in an articl,
| in The Tribune of April Goth. In one
case cited the court held that an as
sessment for street improvement:
was not illegal although no resolution
lfor necessity and notice therefor haC
been given. In another case citeC
the court held that notice of the reso
lutIon of necessity was not essentia
to jurisdiction or to the legality o
the assessment. In another cas-,
cited the court held that it is not tn,
passage of the declaratory resolution
which gives jurisdiction over the per
sons of the property owners. In an
other case cited the court holds that
in this state, the proceedings of cities
for street improvements will not b,
void when there has been an attemp
to compy with the statutory require
ments, though such attempt does no
amount to a strict compliance will
the statute Yet in the face of thes,
decisions Mr.. Metsker still insist
that the procedure of the council il
these improvments is illegal AM
the bonds would be worthless. Doe
he think for a moment that he cal
convince anybody that the proceed
ure Of the council is illegal, when tn,
declaratory resolutions of necessit,
in which the date for hearing re
monstranccs was fixed for April %
were duly passed UNANIMOUSLY by TIL
council which the records of tn,
council show. Does Mr.. Metske
think the taxpayers of the city, 70
whom he has all at once become S,
much concerned, will accept his opin
ion as to the legality of these pro
ceedings as against the decisions o
the supreme court? If he does h.
will find himself sadly mistaken AM
publically condemned.
If Mr.. Metsker's attacks upon tn
city attorney and council is solely il
/ Al, r. r II