The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-02-03

Two Bills to Amend the Pres
ent Statute Were Consid-
cred at Caucus Of House
Committee.


and Cy Davis. Of Bloomfield. made .
stroag speech against II. Instances
we're given. which II was claimed are
duplicated In every city In Indiana.
where II business section Of towns
several blocks Of paving have been
made where there only we're two or
three resident property owners. and
these selected the paving material con.
tsary to the wish o. the men who own.
"a tho business blocks. II was charg-
"a that In some Instances certain paw
Tag Interests secured the selection Of
their material BY these few residents
By agreeing 70 pay the assessments Of
these resident property owners. Rep
roseutative Thornton asked II the
same situation would not exist II the
hoard Of works were permitted to
make the selection, whereupon Mr..
Davis said Il would be bribery and
punishable II board Of works should
do this. whereas II was not bribery
for = citizen to do II.
Resssn oIli.
Mayor Becker. OF Hammond. then
addressed the committee upon the
Hoggeu bill, which he said retained all
the good provisions. The Roggen bill
provides that all owners Of property
upon = street to be improved who re.
sidc within the city shall be consult
ed ~ TO the kind Of material used In
the Improvement: that bids for the
AAAn arA A. ~
four kinds Of paving material: that
the board OF works shall exercise It's
discretion In Selecting the foundation
for streets.-where now only one kind
can be used.
In regard to the paving Of intersec-
lions the bill makes 1t mandatory In
indianapolis for the property owners
10 nay for the Intersections. but in
other cities II 10 left optional ~ to
whether the city or the property own.
er shall pay. u ives explained that
this provision was made because In In.
dianapolis the custom had been for the
property owners to pay and It was
therefore unjust to ask those proper
~ owners who had paid for their own
contribute now toward the cost OF all
improvements. II was pointed ont
that IN some cities the practice had
been one thing. and In some cities the
other.
The Roggen bill provides that which.
ever method the city shall select the
council must pass . law making that
method mandatory and that II cannot
be challenged except by three-fourths
vote of council. Mayor Becker said
he was In favor Of making such an or
dinance incapable Of being repealed.
10 that once method has been set
In motion Il cannot be changed.
Car Companies Must Act.
The Roggen bill also makes It man.
datory upon q street car company to
improve the streets between It's tracks
simultaneously with the city and pro.
vldes a penalty for any delay caused
the contractor by the street car com
pany. Attorney Barrett, representing
the street car company. protested
against this provision. but Engineer
Klausman. Of indianapolis. Mayor
Becker and others said such a provis'
lon was needed to protect cities
against delays by street car companies
which often hang up street improve
ments for months.
AZ the close OF the meeting several
of the paving material men made
charges against each other and claim
cd that either the present Thornton
law or the proposed Roggen bill con
tanned ''jokers" In the interest Of riv
nj concerns. The committee. however
decided to stop the hearing at this
point and showed every one the door
while Il went into executive session.
=