Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1906-1908, 1907-08-30
CODY SPEAKS OUT
ON PAVING QUESTION
MAKES REPLY TO RECENT
ARTICLE IN TIMES.
Still Holds That North Church
Street Property Owners are Op
posed to BriCk-ThinkS Council
Has Suddenly Taken Dislike and
Disregard to PetitionS-Mixed
Up Argument in Evening Paper.

Editor Leader: In answer to the
uncomplimentary article which APP
peared Thursday, August %, in one
of our daily papers, commonly known
as the Daily Times, l will say that
the author of the article seems to dis
play a knowledge only in what would
term mix up u1thermore, it
appears to me that in using the
names uf people in such a disrespect-
full manner, is enough to place the
writer of the Times article in con-
tempt in the opinion of fair minded
people. Not only that, but leaves
ground for libelous action.
In the first place, the paving of
North Church street has nothing
whatever to do with the enforcing of
the laws in regard to the closing of
saloons on Sundays or at j p. m.
week days. | wish to state most
emphatically that | appeared before
the board of public works to oppose
the paving of North Church street. |
appeared as tax payer. | would say
further that | appeared as the duly
authorized agent OF some twenty four
or more tax payers on the street re-
ferred to, which is large majority
of the property owners. [ filed the
petition opposing the paving with
brick at the request or the signers of
the same.
L also appeared before the city
council at the meeting when the mat
ter of the North Church street paving
was brought up. In the "limited'
opportunity at my command, spoke in
opposition to this class of paving,
which | claim l had a right to do,
and gave my reasons for opposing
the paving Of said street. | was not
privileged and asked to take the floor
in the manner that few of the "pet
aldermen are privileged. | was next
to insulted because | had the auda-
city to voice All opinion in opposition
to the views of the ''powers that be-
in that august body, which has taken
an instantaneous dislike to petitions
and the voice of the majority because
it did not sound in harmony with the
ring of the elmer CIRCLE of our
municipal law makers, who in their
action in regard to the paving of
Church street voices soliloquy that
bespeaks in brazeu tones: "To h
with the people. WE are the people. :"
Alderman Ryan in his anxiety to
serve the bidding of the masters, de-
clared that anyone could get sigma
lures to petition. STRANGE is it not,
that Mr.. Ryan and other members of
the council should take such sudden
contempt to petitions? 1t is setting
precedent that may make future
predicaments of the council a little
awkward. 1t has been the custom of
the council since the memory of man
runneth to treat kindly the petitions
of tax payers in all public matters.
But in this instance, the council
takes the responsibility upon itself to
tell these North Church street tax
payers that they have no right TO
oppose the mandate of that great
body-the common council. Strange
is it not?
l gave my reasons before the coun-
ell for opposing the paving of North
Church street.
First-That the value of property is
too small to warrant such expensive
pavement.
Second-That the majority of the
tax payers on the street are opposed
to such pavement.
Thlrd-That the paving of North
Church street with brick makes traffic
too noisy and renders the thoroug hfare
too dusty.
When the board of public works
was supposed to be in session accord
ing to their so-called legal notice, to
hear objections pertaining to the paw
ing OF Church street, appeared there
as tax payer, with certain alder
man, to oppose said paving. | will
say further that l appeared as duly
authorized agent of some .wenty-four
property owners on that street. /
filed the petition With their names
appearing in opposition to the paving
of said street with brick. To my sur
prise | found that the only members
of the board of public works present
was the street commissioner and the