Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1857-05-08


1ssas;, lid, ss Moss a,.iisbll and tecas
misal routs acrsh. the bluff westward Nss
the place where the chs is now made
and IN order to reach this point it would
be necessary for them to psss through The
cit,. and along some public street, and that
s,,sa examination they had found 9TH street
he most desirable one.
The City Council in Common with the ci
tixens of the city, were exceedingly anxious
the company should be accommodated.
To this end they manifested n most com
IaenjaLle disposition to suffer in point oi
pecuniary interest to accomplish it.
With little or M opposition the grant WAS |
finally made. las per Chap - d Revised
Ordinancer) subject. however, TO certain
conditions, to which ! shall hereafter allude
more particularly.
The passage Of the Ordinance granting
the right Of way was not, by any means.
all the company had to do in the premises.
In order to -av. heavy land damages, and
probably annoying and vexatious suits
therefor, it became necessary that they
should obtain so far as possible a reIinquish-
ment Of all claims for damages from property
holders, whose estates fronted on said street.
Such accomplishments were in most instan
ces secured, and with but few exceptions
owners u property released to the company
any claim for damages they might have
sustained, voluntarily and without re,nunera-
ton. ! have been many times assured.
however, that this release would never have
been made, or would have been far less
general, had IL not been for the representa-
tions made by agents u the company, who
were selected to procure il. The strongest
argument used by them was that by the
terms Of the grant made by the City Conn-
ell, it was made incumbent upon them to
to grade and pare. or plank the entire street.
Jetore they could make use Of the same under
the grant. and that consequently what pro
perry owners would loose by the occupancy
Of the street by the company. they mo"id
gain BY kariny 1t graded and paved or
planked. at the expense OF the company, and
that too long before the same improvements
would be made upon other streets in the
city.
These facts can he substantiated by the
testimony Of IA large number Of property
holders. whose evidence can be had in u legal
form, whenever called for. In consideration
Of this and that the tax payers Of the city
have honorably and promptly fulfilled all
their contracts with the company, and have
materially aided them with their money in
the construction Of the road, annot com
prehcnd by what course Of reasoning the
company have 80 long declined TO perform
th,i' portion Of the contract. They Were
certainly under moral obligation to have
had this impro, ement completed u year
ago II seems to me in addition to any mo
| raj obligations the company are legally
| bound, and from present appearances city
Is likely to be compelled 70 resort to its lie
| gal rights.
In this connection allow me to call Your
| attention to the wording Of certain portions
Of the Ordinance making the grant.
See. !. Chap "A says in co"siderafio" o.
tie performance, (not in consideration that
the company will hereafter perform) Of the
conditions hereinafter specified. permission
Sc. is granted upon the following eondi
tions, to be performed by said company:
lst. said company shall at It's own r~opel
cost grade and pave OF plank
the entire street in such IL manne as I,
make a complete roadway.
From u careful and repeated examination
Of this Ordinance, ! am unable to under
stand it but in one way. which Is, that i
was the duty Of the Company before they
have performed its portion Of the contract
upon the performance Of ~hieh. in my opin
ion. rested their right to use it. The righ'
was only granted upon the performance .
this stipulation, and not upon a promise t.
perform. The grading, paving, or plank
ing the street. was a condition precedent t.
the use Of it. and until this is done, they are
in my opinion, tr,slassers rs fully and com
pletcly AS il no such Ordinance had ever
been passed.
Notwithstanding the clear. legal right
which the city has had in this matter, an,
the great inconvenience which owners o
property ON that street, as well as the citi
zens generally, have suffered by reason o
the condition Of the street, they have ex
hil,ited the most remarkable patience and
forbearance, and have submitted most read
lily from time to time, TO the delays Of thu
Railroad Company, for reasons which wer.
urged to relieve the Company from the per
f'rInancc of u contract, the terms Of which
they were most strictly hound to comply
with, or remove their rails from 5th street,
Committees have from time to time been
appointed by the Council. who have wait
ed upon the Officers Of the Company, and
who have reported that they were assured
that the work should be done at an early
day. Various reasons have been given for
the delay first, the proper stone for paw
ing, Dc, could not be obtained till the
Bridge was finished 81 rs to bring it from
Illinois; the burning Of the Bridge was the
reason for another delay. Now there is a
hint thrown out, Of u doubt AS to the oh
legation Of the Company to make the side
walks, &c. 1t is time. in my opinion, if the
city have any rights. 10 assert them. 1t Is
the duty Of the City Council to act prompt
~, and Mt once, and to compel the Company
| to do that which should nave been done
| long since.
Fith-street is one Of the finest. natural
streets in the city. but owing to the eondi-
| ten it has been in for four years, it is al
most valueless. Improvements along the
street have stopped; there are no places
where a carriage can cross the rails. except
| at the Intersections of other streets, and the
| inhabitants, instead Of having a good street
| and sidewalk before other streets in the
city. rs promised by the Railroad Company,