The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1921-03-17
AID. NELSON
ANSWERS
PEAVEY
To the Editor of the "Washburn

If should let the mayors charges
against me in the last issue of the
Washburn News go unanswered, the
taxpayers of our city would natural
" draw the conclusion that | have
changed my view in regard to who
should pay for the sewer that was
constructed in what is called the
Dupont Addition, ordered by the
committee on Public Works in the
year 1918.
Now, Editor, if you will be kind
enough to make space In your news
paper shall try TO the best of my
ability to show to the voters and tax
payers of this city, the ability of
our mayor to falsify and twist the
actual facts and truth in this matter.
1t is true that all through the dis
cussion of this question | have been
opposed to the payment of those sew
ers out of the general fund, and |
am just as much opposed to it now, as
/ have been, but the mayor has
been a member of the committee on
Public Works himself, and he is
the Cause of all our trouble and mis-
understandings in this matter, and
as will show you in this explanation.
l have always been opposed to the
payment of the sewer tax levied on
lots in the east end of the city out
of the general fund, and l am still OPP
posed to it, but | now see no way for
the city to avoid paying it out of
the general fund The following are
the facts, which appear on record in
the court house, so there need be no
Juggling with the truth in relation
to this subject:
The Gray Robinson Construction
Company and E. M. Schefiow entered
into a contract with the Board of
Public Works of the City of Wash
burn and the City Council of that
city in 1918 to construct these sewers
at certain price per foot. $500
per foot was assessed against the lots
owned by E. du Pont de Nemours
& Company, SIPS was assessed per
foot against the lots belonging to
other persons OH the same street.
Ten of the tax payers brought suits
to set aside the special assessment,
and the court determined that the as
sessments were illegal by reason of
the failure to observe technical re-
quirements of the statute and order
ed Judgment that the proper authori-
ties of the City of Washburn take
steps to re-assess these special as
sessments on these lots.
Mr.. Macleod, attorney for Gray
Robinson Construction Company and
E. M. Schefow, appeared before the
City Council every month commenc-
ing last July until October and re-
quested the City Council to take
some action toward making the re-
assessment against these lots, but
owing to the strenuous opposition of
the mayor, nothing was ever done.
On the 23rd of October last, the
mayor and all OF the members of the
City Council were required to APP
pear before Judge Risjord at Ash
land and show cause why they should
not be punished for contempt for
failure to obey the order of the court,
and the law requiring special assess
ments to be made. The Court or
dered the Mayor and Council to pro-
coed in good faith to make the re-
assessment, and the mayor and Coun-
ell promised to do so. Although the
mayor was not present, he was re-
presented by C. F. Morris, his attor-
ney.
The Board of Public Works was re-
quired by the Court to make the re-
assessment. The Board of Public
Works, under the law, was the pro-
per body to make the re-assessment.
1t was composed at that time of the
mayer, L. Il. Clausen, City Clerk and
4NcIS IVA OoCdI. Lie PlOCcSdCu 10
make a re-assessment, and at the
time it was made, the only persons
present was the mayor and Clausen,
and the mayor dominated the meet
ing, and insisted upon levying, in
stead of the full amount due the
contractors. only $3.50, leaving 1910
unpaid, and unprovided for.
The situation was brought to the
attention of the m ayor and the city
council at meeting held on the
Bird day of February, 1921. and the
Councils attention was called to the
fact that the re-assessment had not
provided for the full amount of the
special assessment. Thereupon, the
mayor appointed committee con-
sisting of Aldermen A. P. johnson
and Fred Anderson and myself, and
We consulted with the acting City
Attorney Mr.. Morris and Mr.. Gray
of the Gray-Robinson Company, and
we notified the mayor to be present
at our consultation. We had some
difficulty in getting the mayor to at
tend the meeting and when he
finally arrived, were unable to get any
information out of him. He gave
US no advice, nor offered any sugges-
ton relating to the subject. We