The Mankato free press., 1922-03-31
NieuOs of Laymen
Denies Any MISREPRESENTATION

ScH'CS my "iSiSPiSSSihaN'oH
Mankato, March 24.-To The
Free Press: Noticed reference in
the article on the recall to William
P. Mattert, 152 Dickenson street,
stating his signature had been
procured through false pretenses."
/ wish to state that ! secured his
signature and he also signed for
Mrs. Mattert and son. l wish also
to state that | did not secure those
signatures on Sunday night as stat
ed by Mattert, nor did / misrepre-
sent the object of the petition as
stated by him. If he did not then
tent of the petition, he does not
now understand the meaning of
through false pretenses." He knew
just what he was signing ind
should. be ashamed to make such
an excuse for changing his mind
under pressure"
As to the reference made to the
W. ater" on the hill, there was no
Misrepresentation made. The great
majority of hilltop residents readily
admit that an improvement is nec-
es sary, as the present administra-
ton ignores the matter though
many have had to get water during
the past several months at the
public watering trough on Hinckley
street.
The three sewers" mentioned by
Mr.. Mattert, were not the object he
had in view when he signed the
three names to the rcall.f IL they
were, why did he speak as he did
to certain business man who hap
pened to call at his repair shop a
few days before called on Mattert
with the petition!
While l am one of those who cell
ehrated the recall petition, l am not
ashamed the fact. The present ad-
niinistration has done nothing to
improve conditions for me or any
other 1at oring man in Mankato.
Many voters and taxpayers are dis
satisfied with present conditions as
am. Especially oppressive has
Mayor Beach been to the laboring
] I wish to state now to the public
that any signature | have secured
were honestly gotten and l hope
that no other signer will resort to
| the cowardly method used by Mr..
Mattert to get his name off docu-
ment that he signed in good faith
and understanding.-A. A. E. McLin.
Traction Company and Paving
Mankato, March "a. - To The
Free Press: AS regards the paving
issue, | consider any assumption
that our city council or anyone else
contemplates any course-that would
cripple our street car company
silly. / assume that with knowledge
of the situation everyone agrees
that our traction company must be
relieved or have help. The ques-,
| ton is, who Is to assume their OBJ
| legations.
The traction company and resi-
dents have located upon certain
streets with the full understanding
that when the same were paveo
each would stand certain por-
ton. / contend we have no moral
nor legal right. In case one can
not pay. To place their portion
upon the other. And besides, some
of the residents are even less able
to pay than is the traction company
especially is this so with regard To
West Fourth street near the PARK,
where number of laborers have
small homes with rather large lots,
and on whom this paving is Icing
forced as much against their will
as against that of the traction com
pany.
About the only traffic on that
street is to and from the park. 1t
is not commercial but almost en-
tirely pleasure traffic. 1t will be
fine, and yours truly will also en-
| Joy it, but would call the atten-
! ton of the reasoning public to the
utter absurdity of forcing the bur-
den of this joyriders' pavement up
on a few homes belonging mostly
| to the laboring class. And yet
some would heap upon them also
the traction company's portion. 1t
Is SO easy, you know, to be liberas
where it is the other fellows pock-
etbook. ....
This West Fourth street case is
an example of the absurdity, the
absolute injustice of the present
system of levying paving taxes. For
instance, the city engineers figures
make the tax on one little $4,000
home with average sized lot $500.
This laborer hasn't even a Ford.
Yet in addition to his present taxes,
considered by some outrageous, wilt
have to pay on ten year plan, fig-
uring interest, a tax of 80 per
| month for a pavement for you and
to joyride on. contend that at
least half of this should be paid
| by the city at large and should be
| raised by special auto tax, as auto
owners are the users of the pave
ment.
am a tax payer but have no
property on the car line nor where
the paving is to be done. would