The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1914-10-09

Most of the time of the city coun-
ell at the meeting this morning was
taken up with a hot argument over
the question whether the wall that
has been begun In front Of the Parry
property on South Fourth. street be-
tween Warren and Cherry shall be
constructed at the sidewalk line, or
moved back two feet The city coun!
Gil has the say about this matter. be-
cause the sidewalk line Is eight feet
from the property line, having been
placed there on account OF the high
hillside, to give the proper slant.
This is where the street has lately
been graded down somewhat.
Henry Parry, whose mother owns
the property, was not at the council
meeting. Attorney C. o. Daley, DR..
Ida Osborn, and Erick Carlstron
were there to protest against his
building the wall where It had been
begun. They all declared 1t was an
eyesore.
Claim Of Property Owners.
Several of the councilmen said Mr..
Parry had told them that the inter
ested property owners were satisfied
to have the wall built on the side
walk line, and they said that was
why they told the mayor they we're
perfectly willing to have the matter
arranged in that way. The state
,,,o.,. ,,,.ao la, ti,o Aroparty oyparo
who complained about the wall told
a different story. They declared that
they had never told Mr. Parry that
they were willing that the wall
should be built away out on the side
walk line. The wall they said would
look like fort
Mayor Meyer remarked that 1t was
on the strength of that representa-
ton that he had told Mr. Parry that
he could go ahead with the wall on
the sidewalk line.
At length a motion was passed by
the votes Of Counciimen Lamm, Brad
ley. Lack and Gerlich, to the effect
that the wall should not be construct.
ed. unless it was iplaced back two
feet from the sidewalk line, and was
only three feet high. The mayor
voted no, as he considered that such
a wall would not lhelp things, and
that he had already given his per-
mission that the vail go ahead.
With the passage of this motion
the property owners went away, not
satisfied. as they did not want the
wall at all, but wished to see a ter
race constructed to hold back the
earth. but they we're content to let
the matter be settled In that way.
Henry Parry Appeared.
Later in the meeting, Henry Parry
appeared and strenuously resented
the passage OF the motion, after he
had permission to build the wall on
the line Of the sidewalk. He declared
that a three-foot wall would not be
high enough II the wall had to go
back two feet from that line. He
said wall was needed to hold back
the sand and gravel of the hill.
He was told that the motion was
passed In his absence, because he
had misrepresented DIR. Ida Osborn,
as saying that she was satisfied with
having the wan on the line of the
sidewalk. Mr.. Parry declared that
DIR. Osborn had told him so. He
was told that she said she had never
told him that
Mr.. Parry argued long and strenu.
ously. He asked whether he could
bring the, cement steps down to the
sidewalk line, as had been planned,
and he was told that there was no
objection to that. However, he was
unable to get the. council. at that
time TO make any change I'm the ac.
tion 1t had taken. He thereupon went
away and It was supposed that he
was going to hold conference with
the other property owners OF that
block and see II some agreement
could be reached. Several Of the
council members suggested that
course TO him.
No Rebate Was Given.
City Clerk Bates presented a re
quest on the part OF Roy Lusk that
the money that he paid for dance
licenses for the nights OF September
Is and 10 be refunded. as no license
fee had been required for the dances
held In the armory. The mayor re
marked that no fee ought to be
charged as long as the dances were
held as q means of raising money