New Iberia enterprise and independent observer. (New Iberia, La.) 1902-1944, 1919-05-31
MAIN STREET AND RAILROAD
AVENUE TO BE PAVED WITH
vITRIFIED BRICK. e..

Despite the action of the City Com
missioners in first awarding the contrac
for paving Main Street to the Southern
Pacific Depot with Vitrified brick, an.
the section from Railroad Avenue to tn
end of the upper City limits with .Bith
uletic and at later meeting annullilt
the proceedings, New Iberia from n,
Post Office to the Depot will be paved
with Vitrified brick and the remainder
finished with Bithuletic. This stand wa.
taken after meeting was held by The
citizens on Thursday morning when 4
protest was made. This resulted in .
suggestion from Mayor Sealy, acquiesced
in by Commissioners Villermin and Gil
rard to submit the matter to three at
torneys as to which was the legal pro-
eeedings of that Body and which was in :
valid. The attorneys. Messrs. Walter J.
Burke and z. S. Broussard gave it as
their opinion that the contract was
awarded in legal matter at the meet
ing on Monday and subsequent proceed
ings could not be had, reversing the same.
At the mass meeting on Thursday a gen
eral discussion took place. and questions
were propounded to Mr.. Villermin as to
why he had changed his vote at later
meeting for Bithuletic when only two
days before he had voted to award the
contract to the Vitrified brick contractors
His reply was that he changed his opin-
ion because second petition had been
handed in asking for gravel in the upper
limits and on this petition was more
property holders than had been sub
mitted asking for Bithuletic
Mayor Sealy proposed that an opinion be
secured from three attorneys and the citi-
zens generally felt that that was the bes.
STEPS that could be pursued since there
had been changes that might have
the effect of stopping all Improvements.
The wav the matter stood previous to this
protest on the part of the Main Street
property holders there is no doubt the
whole matter would have had appear
before the Courts. In that case New
Iberia would have had no paved streets
this year, at least and that was what the
citizens generally feared. As the matter
now stands the work will proceed just as
soon as the contracts are signed. vitri-
fed h-i~k to the Southern Pacific Depot
and Bi.huletic the remainder of the upper
portion Of the City. It is true there are
many Of the uptown property holders
who seem to think gravel will answer the
purpose because it is so much cheaper
The fact that only in the course of
Yir years the gravel would have to be re-
placed with some better pavement would
Of itseN Justify the use Of better mate
rial The people will have eleven years
in which TO pay for it, and we are satis-
fled ono. the work is done all of them will
be satisfied Had thew presented petit
zion in time for the first meeting there
is no d-nbt the Council would have given
it to them as they undertook at their
meeting when il was too late.
Attached il the written opinion of the
attorneys:
ATo Messrs. A. B. Murray, Fritz Diet
;ein and Albert Estorge, Committee.
Gcntlemer-You have referred to the
sndersirned an inquiry As to the right
Of Ire Civ Of New Iberia to cancel GER
ian PAVING contracts allotted to the
Richie Brothers for the vitrified brick
pavement of sections one and three as set
ont in the call for bids issued by the
Board Of Trustees Of the City Of Newl
Iberia.
! We understand that at the meeting osI
May 10th. by 4 vote Of two to one, the
contract for the vitrified brick pavement
over the two sections referred to, i. Ell
from Weeks Sweet 70 Rsilroad Avenue
IT the Intersection Of Main. and then
from Main Street 70 the DEPOT. were al
'c..ed 20 ~a-+ies who had complied with |
The equifsments Of the Mavor and Board |
Of Trustees in furnishing bids and in !
making the deposit BY certified check
called for. The call for bids BY, the CITY, |
the offer Of bid BY the Contractor, ac-
eompanisd BY the required deposit, the
scesptsncs Of the bid BY formal resolu-
ton Of the Board Of Trustees Of the Ci.yJ
IS New 1beria. in our opinion, constitute /
! contract II the Contractor refused .oI
% forward with his work, he could bel
psnalised. o. the other hand. If the City
refused to live pp to contract accepted,
4 eeun b psnslised
!. The question arises - to whether or
not the City has the right to rescind this
act3cn. We answer this question i BY
quotina from MeQuillan Municipal Cor
noFnt300a. The lanoua~n = .. e~aa-.I