Fergus County Democrat. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-1919, 1913-12-09
MILWAUKEE OBJECTS TO ASSESS.
MENr ON EASEMENT FOR
THE PAVING.
MAY GO TO THE COURT
Rejected by CounciI-Petition for Ref
erendum Vote on Ordinance Keep
ing Hacks and Taxicabs OF Main
Street-Auto Hose Car Accepted
Porter Named As Electrician.

Last night was the time set for hear.
ing any protests against the levy for
the street paving in Districts and
10.
Mayor w. ID. Symmes, who pre-
sided at the meeting of the council,
called for protests against the levy in
District No. 8 and the Milwaukee, by
Its attorney, r. Won Tobel, submitted
a written protest, based upon the
ground that some of the property as
sessed did not abut upon the paved
district; that the property assessed,
an easement, was not owned by the
railway company, and further that the
assessment proposed would be in
equitable as to the Milwaukee. City
Attorney kirkland stated that he had
gone into all these matters In pre-
pairing the assessment and had sub
mitted the question raised to Attorney
Frank Woody, Mr.. Hodges, attorney
for the bonding company taking the
bonds, and others and all agreed that
the assessment OF the easement was
correct. The statute was plain and
the duty Of the council was to follow
the plain letter of the law and let the
courts construe it, if it came to that.
Mr.. Won Tobel said an easement, to
be subject to such an assessment,
must be owned or controlled by the
company. This easement, a street,
was not owned by the company. The
railway company was assessed for it's
full frontage abutting on the street,
the same as all other property own
ers, and in addition was assessed ON
46.7 feet on its right of way in the
street. A street could not abut upon
itself. In case of failure to pay the
assessment, the city could not enforce
the assessment by selling this portion
of the property, because it could not
sell the street. The Milwaukee was
very much In favor of this improve
ment and was perfectly willing to pay
the assessment for the whole of it's
1856 feet abutting on the pavement, just
as everyone else paid, but 1t did object
to this $500 assessed against an ease
ment over the street.
Mr.. Kirkland, in reply, read the
opinion of VIM. v. Hodges, of Denver,
attorney for the company buying the
paving bonds. in which he held posi-
lively that the assessment against the
cdoculSlL was VdIIu anu COTTcCL, uuucE
our statute. Mr.. Kirkland advised
that the protest be rejected, stating
that even II the courts should sustain
the protest later, it could easily be
remedied by supplementary assess
ment. The vote to reject was unani-
nous, Aldermen Sutter, Berkin, Ford,
Wiedeman, d'Autremont and Miller
voting age. The resolution was then
adopted.
District No. 10.
There were no protests on District
No. 10 and the resolution levying the
assessment was adopted.
Notice was received that the peti-
tion signed by Is per cent of the
voters, asking for a referendum vote
on the ordinance prohibiting hacks,
taxicabs and express wagons from
on Main street from Sixth
avenue to Miller and on Fourth ave-
nue. from Watson street to Main. had
been filed, this carrying out the pro-
gram proposed by H. l.. DeKalb in
asking that the emergency clause of
The ordinance be suspended.
The matter of calling special elec-
ion went over until the next meeting.