The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1917-05-31
Readers Column
IT'S NOT NERVOUSNESS, TOM

friends and defenders. 1t is neces-
sary to guess, why this WAS done, as
the minutes of the citys commission
crs do not give anyt reason. (, One rea-
son is because then county commits
sioners did not asksfor the pavement.
A second reason is that lands of the
county cannot be assessed for the
costs of this Improvement and there
fore the burden would fall upon the
| city at large, as it does in case of
lands of the United States. A third
reason is Of q, POLITICAL nature, namely
that certain 'ofc'the city commission
ers( and thein mastery desired, as it
! was expressed, Ito throw it into the
| chairman Of the county commission
J ers. I%S& %. .5-,t
That the first reason is not the true
one is evidenced by the fact that the
same cityicommissiOner insisted up
on putting pavement down in front of
property spwnei. bN ]t4ose who did lie.
gallyff9e sprotests, iaM KAo even tried
to ehjoin the city by LAWSUITS both in
the state and federal courts, and in
front of protesting owners whose
property was almost. mile farther
from the center of the city than the
court house property, and where We
hicular travel is in the proportion OF
about one to one hundred. So it could
not have been for the first reason.
The second reason+because the
property of the, county was exempt
from this assessment-cOuld not have
influenced the city commissioners, be-
cause if the county property is ex-
empt, then the property owned by the
state is also exempt, but the city
commissioners did not leave the state
property out of the contract, nor the
school property, etc. So it could not
have been for the second reason.
So it must have been for the third
reason, namely, that the city COM
missiOners, or their master, wanted to
throw it into somebody"
| The fault of leaving the pavement
of the streets around the court house
is the fault of the city commissioners,
and any attempt to put the blame on
those county commissioners from the
country districts will fail.
OF course if the city commissioners
want to do their duty they can still
remedy this wrong. The county COM
missioners will not petition for this
pavement. They never have and will
not protest against it. The remedy
still in the power OF the city CON-
| missiOners to make use of is simple.
The resolution of necessity, the plans,
specifications and estimates, and the
advertisement for proposals for said
work all provided for the paving of
the streets around the court house
so that the only place that provision
is left out is in the contract of the
city with the paving company. The
| said contract contains clause that
work Hereunder may be increased,
and such increase paid for according
, to the quantity actually done and at
the price established for such work as
agreed upon in the contract. provided
| such increase docs not exceed Is per
| cent of the original contract. The
| paving of the streets in front Of the
! court house does not exceed Is per
cent Of the original contract. Con-
/ scquently all the city commissioners
need do is to order the Ford Paving
| company to pave the streets around
the court house-and it should be re-
membered that if they do this the city
commissioners would be doing only
, what they declared in their resolu-
ton was necessary. to be done, and
the Ford Paving Company would be
| doing only what they estimated to do
when they bid on the job
| EDW. G.. PATTERSON,
County Commissioner, 1st District