Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1858-12-15
CuRwENsvILLE VS.. cLEARFIELp.

s.Memorial to the Citizens of Clearfeld
County, on the subject of the proposed reno
val of the county seat, published in the last
number of the :'Ciearfieid Republican," / am
informed it was written by gentleman sslearn-
ed in the law" and that he was engaged in its
composition for fire coasecutire days! After
hearing that his travail had been SO great, you
may imagine my surprise when l discovered,
on IFS perusal, that he had brought forth so
paltry an abortiAn. Methinks more transpa-
| rent effort at special pleading, weaker tissue
OF sophisms, was never concocted to deceive
and misead the public. 1 fear should its learn
ed author fail by his brilliant forensic efforts
to perpetuate his fame, it will scarcely be safe
for him to rely upon the classic style, gram
NAUTICAL accuracy, mourntul pathoS, or irreira-
gable arguments of this splendid composition,
| to transmit his name to an admirng post Gritty.
Adopting the pulpit-polemic style, he di-
VldeS his subject into seven distinct heads, and
proceeds to give his ssreasons,'' long drawn
forth, why the people of Clearficld county
should erect their public buildings and spend
their money for the special advantage of the
s'wealthy" citizens of your ''enterprisng'' and
sspublic spirited'' borough, Let us examine
them briefly in their order.
l. he argues that the Legislature, by fixing
| the county seat on the lands of Abraham Wit
mer, (whO paid $4,000, an inducement,)
thereby entered into contract, which, if vio
lated, will compel the county to refund the
| money it received, and pay 10 the lot holders
under .46rahdm Wilmer, the damages that re-
suit from its Infringement! What argu-
mcnt for lawyer? Its simple statement car
ries with it, its own refutation. The Act of
the Legislature fixing the county seat at Clear
field, is like every other Act of Assembly, and
subject to repeal, change, or modification, by
| the power that enacted it. But assuming it to
be a contract liable to infringement, no one
save Abraham Wilmer or his heirs could avail
themselves of its breach to recover damages,
and 1t is impossible for them to sustain any,
as they do not own a foot of soil in or about
the borough of Cicarfield To argue that the
ssowners of lots'' who trace their title to Abra-
ham Wilmer, could recover damages for the
violation of such a contract, is simply puerile.
As we'll might it be said that l would have a
right to recover damages from the owner of a
mandatory who, after selling me lot conti-
guous TO it, removes his eStabi shment, thus
depreciating the value of my property. Yet
were to employ the learned author OF the
"memoriaP' as my attorney to institute ac-
| tion under such circumstances, he would be
| laughed out of Court. But the refutation of
| such an argument is idle No one knows bet
| ter than the writer of that s'memora,'' that if
there was really ga contract" such as he labors
| to prove, there would be no danger of the re-
moyal of the public buildings from Clearfield,
| for any Act of Assembly that would affect the
| rights OF the parties under that sscontract"
would be declared, by the Supreme Court, un-
| constitutional and void Hence if he believ-
| ed his own argument, he would be the last
man to spend fire days of his valuable time in
| the preparation of his ''memorial,'' or exert
himself to defeat the bill asked for by the cit
izens of Curwensville. He would calmly and
dispassionately await the issue, and if they
| obtained the passage of an Act, 20 to the Su-
| preme Court and have il annulled on the uni
versal and firmly rooted principle, that no
State can pass law impairing the obligations
| II
may rest assured that, if the public buildings
can be removed at all, there will be no DANA
ges TO pay in consequence. SO much for his
| first position.
| 2. His next .sreason'' is that the assessed
value of the property of the citizens of your
borough is greater than that of any two dis
| tricts in the county. Admitting it to be true
| the force Of this argument is not very appa-
| rent If the people of Clearfield are so very
wealthy, and SO much opposed to the removal
of the county buildings, why do they not offer
to do what the people of Curwensvllc propose,
and thus save the taxpayers the cost of their
| erection? Why, too. do they not build a re-
| spectacle hotel, that when people attend court
| they can be comfortably accommodated? 1t
! is fact, known to every man compelled to
visit your town, that there is not a building in
| it that will afford decent hotel accommodations.
| 1t is impossible for any inn-kceper, however
much he may be disposed to promote the COM
| iO't VI MS SuCotS, ~ proper entertain
ment in the miserable, old, rckety buildings
now used as hotels. They would be disgrace
to village possessing one-fourth the wealth
that the s'Memorial'' attributes to the center
| prising" and sspublic spirited'' citizens of
Clearfeld. If the people of your town are so
rich, and the loss of the public buildings so
| great a calamity, why surely they can afford to
erect them at their expense, together with
first class hotel, and thus prevent their reno
val. One would suppose if poor, poverty
stricken CurwenSvlle can afford to do so, that
the wealthy nabobs of your enterprsing bor-
| ough would scarce miss from their overfiowing
| Golfers the patry amount necessary for the
purpose. 1t comes with bad grace from men
so opulent-the owners of such large possess
sions-to ask the poor taxpayers to improve
| their town and increase the value of their prop
| erty, already worth more than twice as much
| as that of any other two districts in the coun-
| ty. The complacency with which the author
OF the ''memoriaP' boasts of the affluence of
your town, and at the same time asks those of
other parts of the county, whom he demon
| strates to be So poor in comparison, TO forego
| the opportunity of having their public build
| lngs erected free of cost, for the special ad-
vantage OF the borough of Clearfield, reminds
| one very much of ssbeggars on horseback"
| We come now to his sthird' division.
3. 1t is argued that ssClearfield borough is
| in more central position than Curwensville." ]"
! 1t is well known fact that Curwensville is
within two miles of the centre Of the county,
and assuming it to be otherwise, there can be
| but little doubt what conclusion will be arrived
| at, when the alternative is presented to the
| people of travelling few miles farther, or pay
| ing increased taxes. But, says the ssmemori-
al, it ssamounts to very little inasmuch as the
erection of Pine county has become fixed
fact" If it has, it is certainly not to be at
| tributed to the redemption of the oft-repeated
| pledges of the sswealthy men of Clearfeld." !"
| If hey bav he Sr5d Iy -al