The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1922-07-28
BALKS AT PAYING
REPAIR ON PAVING
LETTER OF S. B. WILSON TO
MAYOR W. A. BEACH
PUTS IT UP TO THE CITY
Corporation Insists That Re-
sponsibility For Conditions
Rests On Municipality

S. B. Wilson, attorney for tn
Mankato Electric Traction company
In a letter to Mayor w. A. Beach, to
day, declares that his client, tn
Traction company, will stand for
law suit rather than pay for repair
to the paving on North and Soutl
Front street, as requested by Mayo
Beach on the implied threat Of Hi
Honor TO have the street car track
removed from the thoroughfare.
Thus it will be seen that the en-,
is not yet in sight in the matter o
whether or not the Mankato Elec
trio Traction company shall be as
sesed for repair, OF pavement be
tween and near the tracks on From
street. The proceedings have takel
another squirt when Attorney VIII
SON, counsel for the company, sen
the following letter To Mayor w. A
Beach. The letter states plainly tn
position of the Traction company
In a word, the company takes tn
position that it is not legally liabl
for the present bad condition q
the paving-that the city itself i
responsible, the Traction compan,
having protested against the man
ner in which the paving was laid.
is contended in Mr.. Wilson's lette
that city officials caused the specih
cations TO be disregarded in the lay
ing q the paving.
The Wilson Letter
Manbeato, JUDY ~, ts2.-Mayor
w. A. Beach, City. Dear Sir:
notice, In the newspapers that you
Msnkato Electric Traction company
IN reference to your demand upon
us In connection with the block paw
ina on North and South Frout
street.
the council already Thoroughly I'M
oerstood our position In this mat
ter as we have heretofore endeav-
ored to make our position plain TO
in the FIRST place, the Traction
company can not pay the expenses
Incident to replacing this block paw
ING. We are not trying 20 make
money at the expense OF the people
but are trying to exist and !, per
weii sfsord to be nbeSai with the
company In this matter Of paving.
and I constrpe the recent election
Is a vote Of confidence In the com
pany. This matter Of repsslns
WOOD DOCKS dtON9 IttC tEoSNo - NuS
only red light that we now see IN
the path Of our advancement COM
n1ensurateiy with the progress OF
the city. We feel that we are en-
titled to the help and assistance Of
TIE city eounei! In order to permit
QUESTION OF REsPOASI6 sLTTY
Now, aside from the question OF
our Inability to pay, which ought TO
be ! reason for You TO consider be-
fore you put the city and AM. y. to the
please be advised that we do not
Pink, t.at we are legally respou-
sibie for this defective condition Of
tbs block paving along the tracks.
" remember rightly hsSrd you
Inc not long ago that II the tracks
wereN not there, this condition would
not exist. Possibly that 10 so, and
yet the presence Of the tracks might
not be the proxirnate cause OF the
defective condition.
SEVERAL LEGAL QUESTIONS
There are several legal questions
which we think wtll protect us and
which ! do not deem II necessary
20 discuss at this time, but a. a
show that we have some equities
that the city officials ara ignoring.
call your attention to the fact
that the Tractfoo company claims
that this paving was not put down
specifications for the construction
Of this work was Violated fiaeraut-
~ by the city officials In opposition
TO the advice OF the then city en-
gineer and the Traction company
was then obIeeting TO the violation
Of the specifScations and received
then, little more consideration at
their>hands than IL Is now receiN-
Ing. u seems Unnecessary Tor me
TO repeat here specifically the var
as you, Undoubtedly. are familiar
with them The Traction company
e not only verbally objected, but Med
written protest With the city
OFFICIALS, but were wholly Ignored
PAID FOR PAVING.
10 HiId for this paving and later
IT, Ssf5cts began TO develop bkst
az. we had prophesied and then We
the defects but found that beeat.e
Of tie defective construction. i
could not be repaieed and that II
was condition cshIios for. new
paving entirely and we feel that
since the city officials had made
struction, and that In defiance Of
our advice and protest TO the con-
trary that the city should pay the
cost Of correcting the trouble. We
We tried to compromise with the
city council but met with ridicuie
and apparent scorn at their hands.
NOT RECOGNIZING LIABILITY
Under the circumstances, we must
sSsS ts, t dsse ee,d IL of sss
block paving along our tracks that
you have referred TO. and we can
not comply with your demand. We
feel that we are Justified in defend
effieisIs intend to pursue Us further.
: am informed that the city attor-
ney has advised that you are at
liberty to bring mandamus proceed.
Inos against US or 90 ahead and
pave tie street along our tracks and
should pay. The public undoubtedly
would prefer the latter proceeding
as the street would then be serv-
Ieeable and In good condition, and
terrible condition and needs i'm
mediate attention.
CLAIMS NO LIABILITY.
The traction company have corr
Guided that II is not liable In the
matter and will await the decision
Of the court to determine where. the
responsibility Hes
The company regrets that II Is
unable 20 agree with the city coun-
ell, but feels that self Preservation
rights although Il has been at all
times, and still 10, willing 70 share
In the loss and make any reason
able compromise that recognizes the
large amount of money which II has
already paid for this paving and at
tempted repaIrs.-very respectfully,
S. b. Wilson.
What is the next move?
Mayor Beach stated this after
noon that he had not yet read tn
letter and that when he has read
there will be no statement for pub