The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1922-05-19
SPECIAL ELECTION

fore the meeting adjournment was
| taken. s'.-
Statement From S. q. Wilson.
S. B. Wilson, attorney for the
Mankato Electric Traction company,
referring to the action of the city
council, SAD: - : 9Th
We'll, we have never tried to
tell DR.. W. A. Beach how he should
raise the, money to pay for the
paving if we are. relieved from this
expense. We do think the right way
is to assess this cost up to the
| abutting property just the same as
II the car tracks were not there,
except as to the excess. II our
tracks were not there, who would
pay for it? The answer to this ques
; tion answers the question in con
| troversy. However, since the coun-
Gil expresses their judgment that
| the city at large should pay this
expense. and I'm told that they say
they will vote for this ordinance,
we will see how the people look at
this matter. If this proposal is de-
feated at the special election, it
| will be no indication that the people
are not willing to vote to relieve US
of the Expense of paving. / think
this a useless election and in order
having this question being put to
al VI IN
turn voters against it, we will short
ly put in circulation petition to
have the ordinance as we desire it
submitted to vote of the people.
If the city council can succeed in
carrying this measure, as they are
proposing it, the proceedings on our
petition map then be abandoned il
it appears advisable: but we will
move along so that no one will
claim we are trying TO delay mat
tiers.
81 note that the mayor and some
councilmen freely state that my
statement to the effect that the car
tracks in West Mankato will be
picked up if We are not given relief.
is bluff They apparently make
this statement freely and are willing
to assume to know whereof they
l.
serve in the future what is done,
having in mind what has been said,
and II will develop who has been
Juggling with the truth. We have no
alternative or choice, and my state
ment was a simple fact, and In the
absence OF help from the city coun-
ell. even the mayor will eventually
believe me-but it may then be too
late to do good.
81 do not ~-gard the case OF
Hughes VS.. Farnsw orth, 127 Mimi,
295. decided by our supreme court
June 90, 1917, as any authority pre-
venting the costs of paving along
our tracks from being, charged to
the abutting property to the extent
of the cost thereof to the amount
that it. would cost if the tracks were
not there at all"
torney c. E. Gilmore as being apple
able to West Front street in Man.
kato and would prevent the council
from assessing the abutting prop
erty owners for the cost of the paw,
ing the street car roadbed.
Opinion of Mr.. Gilmore.
City Attorney Gilmore, in dis
cussing the decision, said:
Section 152 of our city charter
provides that the council snail as
sess the cost of paving on property
benefited thereby; and Section 153
provides that the council shall as
sess the cost of paving on the prop
erty TO be benefited thereby, in pro-
portion to the benefits resulting
taereto. but in no case in excess of
such benefits. The intersections
are paid for from general funds OF
city, rs, =, r.
Hughes V, Farnsworth, 1877 Mimi,
295. is a case involving a situation
in st. Paul, Minnesota, where Mar
shall avenue was paved. over
part of the distince covered by the
paving a street car track was laid;,
and over the rest of the distance
there were no tracks. The street car
company paved its roadbed. The
city paved to the roadbed on each
side where the street car track was
laid and to the middle of the street
over the rest of the paved area.
The assessing officers of the city
of st. Paul divided the whole i'm
provement into two sections, one
section being that upon which the
street car tracks were laid and the
other being that portion upon which
no street car tracks were laid. They
determined that the property abut-
ting on each, portion of the street
was benefited. to the extent of the
costs of paving that portion of tle
street. The property owners along
the section upon which there was
no track, and who were assessed to
the center of the street. maintained
that they were assessed too mucl;
since the property along the section
upon which there was a street car
track paid only to the road bed of
the street car line and yet, they
maintained, the property there re-
ceiyed as much benefit as they did,
where there was no track. In other
words, it was maintained by the OBJ
jectors that the assessment failed to
comply with the constitutional re-
quirement of uniformity upon tle
same class of subjects.
'The court, in this case, recogniz-
ed the principle that the courts can
not set aside an assessment unless
there is a clear abuse of the coun-
cil's power in making the assess
ment; il it is situation upon which
reasonable men may differ the con
clusion of tne council in the mat
ter must stand. 80
'In sustaining the view of the
matter taken by the assessing off
GERS of st. Paul the court said: We
think the assessing officers might