The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1911-12-29

Friday,
give the commissioners discretion inl
any matter. 1t simply says that
these are the methods that must be
followed by the commissioners and
work cannot be done in any other
way.
First, it was admitted said Mr..
Schaub, and not disputed, that the
twelve items brought by former
Street Commissioner Waters were
never ordered by the council. He
explained the difference between the
council an dexecutive officers. The
council consisted of all or quorum
of the council at session in public
meeting, and when the meeting was
adjourned, the members no longer
formed council but were simply
executive officers, and when they
have left the council rooms they
have no right to make improve
ments and make laws any more than
a private citizen. He read sections
eighty-nine and ninety which pro-
vides for methods for performing
city work.
The councilmen could suggest that
this work be done but a motion
must be made and passed before the
work could be started. After an es-
innate had been made, and the cost
of the work found to be less than
| 500, then the work could proceed
without letting any contracts. He
also read the section of the charter
which provided for immergency
cases, and said that he admitted
| that in some cases the council had
without calling for bids, but that
| the council had no right to make
permanent improvements as they
| have done.
The second question Mr.. Schaub
! brought up was that the work was
not advertised, and repeated the
statements made Wednesday which
were published in The Free Press
| yesterday.
Claimed Nothing to Dispute.
| Regarding the question Of how
much the work cost, Mr.. Schaub
said there was nothing to dispute.
1t did not make any difference to the
! city now as these costs could not
! be remedied by the committee He
stated that the figures of Mr.. Wat
/ tiers and City Engineer Blomaust
were close enough to show that the
city had gone to more than ordi-
nary expense for these improvements.
| The difference in figures was the
cost of the material and which were
not included in the figures Of Mr.
Blomquist. as most of this material
was had free by the city. However
he said that he was sure these i'm
! prOvements had cost more than il
they had been let by contract. He
wanted to teach the council les
son for the future. He wanted to
warn this council and any other
council that doing things contrary to
the provisions of the charter would
prove to their detrment in the end
The pay roll and the expenditures
could easily have been decreased by
a little economy Mr. Waters had
testified that if this work had been
| let by contract the expense would
have been considerably reduced. Mr.
Schaub said that the material should
be taken into consideration, as the
| property owners whose property was
benefited did not care how the city
I got it's material, whether for moth
Wing or if at heavy cost. For this
7 reason the property benefited should
I be assessed. aNae19 Is"
57' Question of Assessment.
I There should be no dispute as
to the question OF assessment as II
was admitted ON all of the twelve
cases that no assessment was made,
said Mr.. Schaub "As proof of these
statements he read section 144 OIL
the city charter which provides that
! the cost of improvements is to be
betrayed by assessments. He also
read section 145, giving the eXcep.
tons of the former section"
The first part of Attorney Schaub's
argument was concerning the law.
full right of the council to maRe
these improvements under the meth.
DDS which, were used. The second
part Of his argument was the ques
ton of policy. He said the Madison
avenue filling was the most doubtful
question of all. II was truc mat
there was cavern there, but the
council had made permanent i'm.
provement there instead of a mere
! repair. He left this to the COM
mittee to decide.
The Eagle Lake Hill.
/ In regard to the Eagle Lake hill
Improvement Mr. Schaub thought
that the property benefited should
have been assessed Nothing is said
in the charter about the property
abutting. but has definite provisions
concerning the property benefited.
If this property should not have
been assessed, then. he contended.
the commissioners had no right to
make the improvements.
The same applied to the filling
on the boulevard on Second and on
Lincoln streets. At this point he
also explained that Mr.. Waters did
not complain about Mr.. HumistOn,
who is at the head Of the streets
and alleys department, but that he
aimed his charges at all the COM
missioners.
! Mr.. Schaub also contended that the
/ work on Jackson and Fourth streets
certainly was benefit to the .ad-
joining property because it kept