New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-07-22
Board Accepts
Viewers Report
STRENUOUS OPPOSITION AGAIN
MANIFESTED BY WEST END
FARMERS.
EXCITEMENT LASTS ALL DAY
MANY SUPPORTERS ALSO
PRESENT.

PRESENT.
"a Considerable bitterness manifested it.
self at the special meeting of the Board
of County Commissioners held last Fri
day when, after mature and deliberate
consideration, the Board unanimously
decided to accept the viewers report on
Rural Highway No. 81 which forms part
of the Yellowstone Trail running from
Chicago to the Yellowstone National
Park. Besides that, a great deal OF
eloquence was wasted, so to speak, on the
desert air. There was eloquence in un-
limited qualities and handed out in big
chunks, and the most of the speakers
were rewarded with vigorous applause.
The audience was fair enough to give
credit to the opposition when a telling
point was made and it was hard to tell
at times from the applause which side
had the greater number Of followers.
Altho the business was scheduled to
begin at 10 o'clock it was nearly half
hour later before Chairman Herman
.Polkow called the meeting to order. The
SyQrenoon was consumed in reading the
y Viewers report and the proofs that proper
notice had been given. A recess was
then taken until 2 o'clock in the after
noon The assembly was a large one,
the auditorium in the Court Room being
well filled. Not only were the oppo-
nents to the road present in large num-
bers, but also friends of the road were on
hand, there being large delegations from
Springfield, Sleepy Eye and from among
the business men from New Ulm.
In the afternoon session petitions
sighned by business men and farmers
from Sleepy Eye, Golden and Spring
field were read and ordered filed as was
also resolution signed by the Good
Roads Committee of the Commercial
Club Of New Ulm, representing mem
bership of 120. The petitions claimed
448 signatures. RESPONSIVENESS were
also presented and filed showing total of
$50 signatures. Another instrument was
filed showing the withdrawal of six of the
original petitioners in which it was stated
that they had signed the original petition
under misapprehension. These docu-
ments led to elimination and recrimi-
nation and the lie was frequently passed.
One claimed that some of the signers of
one of the petitions were not even resi-
dents and citizens of the county and that
one OF them was pauper and was re-
ceiving support from the County. This
was vehemently denied and it was re-
torted that some of the signatures on the
remonstrances had been secured by
threats and that Sleepy Eye business men
were threatened with loss of business if
they did not sign the remonstrance. The
remonstrances contained the signatures
of 125 from the Towns of Stark andHome,
Sc from the Town of Prairieville, II from.
Milford, 30 from Leavenworth, from
Burnstown and 80 from North Star.
Hardly had the afternoon meeting
oSSA1 NAAASA w VI ucl dllu CIlG Oudlr dSkeU
for expressions for or against the road
when Jos. Schwengler from the Town of
Prairieville asked for the floor. He
4 talked several times during the discussion
and it took considerable effort to keep
him effectively squelched. At one time
he butted in just when one of the
speakers had waxed eloquent and wanted
to know about the Town of Leavenworth.
He was apparently very enthusiastic and
this proved quite surprise to his friends
who claim that at home under ordinary
circumstances he would not for love or
money get up before an audience ard
voice his sentiments.
Charles Stuebe, ST., was one of the
: first speakers, He told the audience that
he had two farms which would be as
sessed if the road were built and that he
did not own and never did own an auto
mobile. He was heartily in favor of the
road. He believed in progress, he said
and pointed to the fact that although
Minnesota Street in the city of New Ulm
was in passable condition at all seasons
Of the year the property owners were
going to pave five blocks at an expense
of over $30,O00.00, all of which would he
assessed against the abutting property.
He also stated that he had been told that
an attempt would be made in the next
legislature to have the law changed so
that the State would nav 0ne-haf aud
that the other half should be paid by the
County. He maintained that this is all
wrong, because there is no question that
all Of the lands in close propinquity to