any written or any other remonstrance or objection, unless such council deems proper. [Amendment approved March 11, 1893, statutes 1893, p. 173.] [Section 24 was amended by the act of March 14, 1889, statutes 1889, p. 170; again by act of March 31, 1891, statutes 1891, p. 206; and again by the act of March 11, 1893, statutes 1893, p. 173. SECTION 25. The city council may, in its discretion, repair and water streets that shall have been graded, curbed and planked, paved or macadamized, and may build, repair and clean sewers, and shall provide a street contingent fund at the same time and in the same manner as other funds are provided, out of which to pay the costs and expenses of making said repairs and watering said streets and building, repairing and cleaning said sewers; but whenever any unaccepted street or part of a street requires regrading, recurbing, repiling, repaving, replanking, regraveling or remacadamizing or requires new culverts or new crosswalks or new sidewalks or new sewers, the work shall be advertised and let out by contract, and the costs and expenses thereof shall be assessed upon the property affected or benefited thereby, the same as in the first instance. 1885, page 161.] [Statutes [Section 25 of the act has never been amended. See notes to section 13 of this act, supra, page 162 et seq. See supra, pages 6 and 7, notes to section 2, of the act upon "regrading," "replanking," etc. SECTION 26. The city council may, in its discretion, order, by resolution, that the whole or any part of the cost and expenses of any of the work mentioned in this act be paid out of the treasury of the municipality from such fund as the council may designate. Whenever a part of such cost and expenses is so ordered to be paid the superintendent of streets, in making up the assessment heretofore provided for such cost and expenses, shall first deduct from the whole cost and expenses such part thereof as has been so ordered to be paid out of the mu icipal treasury, and shall assess the remainder of said cost and expenses proportionately upon the lots, parts of lots and lands fronting on the streets where said work was done, or liable to be assessed for such work, and in the manner heretofore provided. [Amendment approved March 31, 1891, statutes 1891, page 206.] [Section 26 was amended by act of March 14, 1889, statutes 1889, page 170, and again by the act of March 31, 1891, statutes 1891, page 206.] PART II. SECTION 27. Whenever the city council deem it necessary to construct a sewer, then the said council may, in its discretion, determine to construct said sewer, and assess the cost and expenses thereof upon the property to be affected or benefited thereby, in such manner and within such assessment district as it shall prescribe, and the lien therefor upon said property shall be the same as is provided in section nine of this act, or said council may determine to construct said sewer and pay therefor out of the street contingent fund. [Statutes 1885, page 162.] [Section 27 of the act never has been amended.] The sections embraced in Part II of the act,-sections 27 to 33, inclusive,-in addition to the ordinary method for paying the expenses of the work authorized by the act,which ordinary method is by assessment according to the front-foot plan,-provide three extraordinary methods for paying the expenses of sewer construction, viz: (1.) By assessing the cost and expenses of sewer construction upon the property to be affected or benefited thereby, and in such manner and within such assessment district as the council shall prescribe; or (2.) by paying the cost of constructing the sewer out of the street contingent fund; or (3.) by incurring an indebtedness, created by the issuance of bonds, or by such other mode as the council shall, by ordinance provide. The first of said methods for paying the cost of sewer construction is provided for by section 27 of the act. The second is controlled by the provisions of sections 27 and 33. And the third method of paying the cost of sewer construction—namely, by the incurring of an indebtedness-is controlled by sections 28 to 33, inclusive. The practical utility of these provisions of Part II of the act does not seem to be very apparent. It would seem at first blush to be a specially enabling provision applicable to sewers only. But all three modes provided by Part II for meeting the expenses of sewer construction seem to be provided either by other parts of the act or by an independent act. Thus, as to the two modes provided for by section 27,assessing the cost and expenses upon the property lying within an assessment district, or paying out of the street contingent fund, the first mode (district assessment plan) is amply provided for by section 3 of the act, where it is provided that, for the work of constructing sewers, specifi cations shall always be furnished to the council by the city engineer, and whenever the contemplated work or improvement is, in the opinion of the city council, of more than local or ordinary public benefit, etc., the city council may make the expense of such work or improvement chargeable upon a district, which the council shall, in its resolution of intention, declare to be the district benefited by said work or improvement, and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof. As to the second mode provided for by section 27,-paying the costs and expenses of sewer construction out of the street contingent fund-section 26 expressly empowers the city council to order the whole or any part of the cost and expenses of any of the work mentioned in the act to be paid out of the treasury of the munici pality from such fund as the council may designate. So that the two modes of meeting the expenses which are provided for by section 27 of the act, and made specially appli cable to sewer construction, seem to be amply provided for by other parts of the act, unless it be held that it was the intention of the legislature that the modes provided by Part I of the act, for meeting the expense of any work, do not include the cost of sewer construction, and that, as to sewer construction, the modes provided by Part II of the act for paying the expenses of the work are exclusive of all others; that is to say, that by Part II of the act the legislature intended to limit the modes for paying the costs and expenses of sewer construction to the three modes provided for by Part II, and that therefore, as to sewer construction, the ordinary, or front-foot mode of assessinent, is not applicable. But, this cannot have been the intention of the legislature, for the following reasons: First: Subdivision one of section 7 provides that the expenses incurred for any work authorized by this act (except the cost of any work which shall have been declared in the resolution of intention to be assessed on a district benefited) shall be assessed upon the lots and lands according to the front-foot plan of assessment, except as thereinafter specifically provided; and subdivision 2 of said section 7 provides that the expense of all improvements (except such as are done by contractors under the provisions of section 13 of this act, i. e., "repairing" or "reconstructing" streets out of repair or needing reconstruction) "shall be assessed upon the lots and lands, as provided in this section, [Sec. 7] according to the nature and character of the work." But, aside from the work done by contractors under the provisions of section 13 of the act, the only exception to the front-foot plan of assessment recognized by section 7 is that provided for by subdivision 12 of the section, where, carrying out the provisions of section 3, which authorize the council to declare an assessment district wherever the contemplated work or improvement is, in the opinion of the council, of more than local or ordinary public benefit, it is provided that "whenever the resolution of intention declares that the costs and expenses of the work and improvement, are to be assessed upon a district, the city council shall direct the city engineer to make a diagram of the property affected or benefited," etc. But, while subdivision 12 of section 7 recognizes the fact that there might be a case where the expenses shall be raised by assessing the property within an assessment district, and supplies the appropriate machinery for levying the assessment, when that mode is adopted, still it does not state when or in what cases the district assessment plan shall be adopted, while subdivision 2 of section 7 provides that, with the exception of such work as is done by contractors under the provisions of section 13, "the expense of all improvements shall be assessed upon the * * * lots and lands, as provided in this section, according to the nature and character of the work," and subdivision 1 provides that "the expenses incurred for any work authorized by this act shall be assessed upon the lots and lands fronting thereon, except as hereinafter specifically provided; each lot or portion of a lot being separately assessed, in proportion to the frontage, at a rate per front foot suffi cient to cover the total expense of the work." The only exceptions recognized by subdivision one, section seven, to the ordinary, or front-foot mode of assessment, are: (1.) Where the work is done in such portion of any street as is required by law to be kept in order or repair by any person or company having railroad tracks thereon; (see supra pp. 67-69); (2.) where the cost of the work has been declared in the resolution of intention to be assessed on a district benefited-as provided for by section 3 of the act; and (3.) where any exception to the front-foot mode of assessment is elsewhere in section seven "specifically provided." The phrase "except as hereinafter specifically provided," as used in subdivision 1 of section 7, must mean "except as hereinafter in this section (section 7) specifically provided," since subdivision 2 of section 7 provides that "the expense of all improvements, except such as are done by contractors under the provisions of section 13 of this act shall be assessed upon the lots and lands as provided in this section, according to the nature and character of the work." * * * Second: Section 3 and subdivision 8 of section 7, at least countenance the adoption of the front-foot mode of assessment in connection with sewer construction, and thus show that the act contemplates that the expenses of sewer construction may be provided for according to the front-foot, or ordinary and usual plan provided by the act for all street work, as well as by either of the extraordinary modes provided by Part II of the act. Section 3 provides that the owners of a majority of the frontage of the prop erty fronting on any proposed work or improvement, where the same is for one block or more, may make a written objection to the same within ten days after the expiration of the time of the publication and posting of the notice of the passage of the resolution of intention, and that such objections-except as to sewers and other expressly excepted work-shall be a bar for six months to any further proceedings in relation to the doing of said work or making such improvements. But as to sewers it is provided that "when the work or improvement proposed to be done is the constructions of sewers * * * and the objection thereto is signed by the owners of a majority of the frontage liable to be assessed for the expense of said work, as aforesaid, the city council shall at its next meeting, fix a time for hearing said objections, etc., and its decision shall be final and conclusive, and the said bar for six months to any further proceedings shall not be applicable thereto." [See also section 24.] And, by subdivision 8 of section 7, it is provided that when sewering or resewering is ordered to be done under the sidewalk on only one side of a street for any length thereof, the assessment for its expenses shall be made only upon the lots and lands. fronting nearest upon that side," etc. As to the third mode provided by Part II for raising the money necessary to pay the cost of sewer construction-incurring an indebtedness by the issuance of bonds or otherwise. as provided by the council-this mode seems to be fully covered by the municipal indebtedness act of March 19, 1889 (statutes 1889, p. 399) entitled "An act authorizing the incurring of indebtedness by cities, towns and municipal corporations, incorporated under the laws of this state, for the construction of waterworks, sewers and all necessary public improvements, or for any purpose whatever, and to repeal an act approved March 9, 1885," etc., and the several acts amendatory thereof. See infra for the provisions of this act of March 19, 1889, as amended by subsequent amendatory acts. This municipal indebtedness act provides that whenever the cost of any sewers will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the municipality, the city council may, after an election authorizing the same, issue bonds to pay the cost of such work, etc. In view of the foregoing, and especially in view of the fact that section 27 of the act empowers the city council. to adopt the district assessment plan in all cases of sewer construction, notwithstanding the fact that section 3 also confers upon the council the option to adopt the district assessment plan if it deems the contemplated work or improvement to be of more than local or ordinary public benefit,-the question might very pertinently be asked: If the three extraordinary modes especially provided by Part II of the Vrooman act for defraying the cost and expenses of sewer construction, are likewise provided by other parts of the act-in conjunction with the said municipal indebtedness act of March 19, 1889,-and if, therefore, Part II of the Vrooman act is of no practical utility, what object did the legislature have in view when it enacted this part of the statute? This question may be answered as follows: |