Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1866-11-30

SPECIAL MEETING.

Council CHAMBER, Nov. % 1866,
Present His Honor the Mayor, John l..
Davies, Aldermen Andersen. Davis, Frixzell,
Jones, Arndt, Aatthes, Noe, and WarnebOld.
The Clerk read the following call for
special meeting
DAVENPORT, Iowa, Nov. 90, 1865.
To His Honor the Mayor and Aldermen Of the
City of Ddrenport
BY virtue of Sec. 2, of Art. VI, Of the
Article of Incorporation Of the City Of Dav.
export, passed by the General Assembly OF
the State of Iowa and approved February
9th, 1851, We the undersigned, Aldermen Of
said city OF Davenport, do hereby call
special meeting of the City Council OF .aid
place, in the City Hall of the City of Dav
export, ON Tuesday, Nov. q. 1866, at :.
o'clock p. NJ, for the purpose Of giving n
re- hearing to the parties interested in the
vacation or re.opening of Clifton Hill ave
nue., and streets recently vacated by the City
Council on petitions OF John F. Dillon, Geo.
L. Davenport It. al and for receiving the
report of the Committee appointed for sam.
purpose, and for taking any action the
Council may deem proper in reference there
to.
Geo. G. Arudt, II. II. Andersen.
w. G. Jones, A. Warnebold,
J. N. Frizzell, James Coulthart,
Nicholas Kuhnen, NJ. Noe,
NJ. G. Davis, o. 3. Mcneil.
Vim. Pool GUY Marshal:
You will notify each Alderman that there
will be meeting Of the City Council At the
time and place designated in the withia call
JonN l.. DAVIES, Mayor.
AID. Andreeen moved that the parties in
terestetl for and sgainst the petition in the
~ kn IN Se l.o
avenue, be now allowed to present to the
Council their views and arguments for and
against the prayer Of the petition.
Carried.
Whereupon Geo H. Parker, ESQ, procee
ded to present the case on the part of peti.
ttonen MI. Parker contended that the
Council had acted in the matter Of vacatine
said street, in IN ex parte manner, without
giving the parties interested In the petition,
an opportunity Of being heard that the
vacation Of the street effected petitioners in
juriOusly, By excluding them from the use
of . public street after having purchased
their property on & e faith of, and with ref
erence to the street, as heretofore plated
and recorded; that the vacation of the
street deprived them of vested rights in the
use OF the street. lie further contended,
that the vacation of the street by the City
Council, was not done in accordance with
the provisions Of the City Charter: that the
Charter requires that the vacation of streets
shall be effected by ordinance, duly passed
and approved by the City Council, and no,
BY reacluts0n and that the Council having
acted by resolution merely. and not by the
passage Of IN ordinance. their action, in the
matter of the " alton OF the street, was
void: that the petitioners merely ask that
the Council should undo what they had done
with reference to the street, and nothing
more. He further maintained that Judge
Dillon had not complied with the State law
relating to the Acati on Of pats and streets;
that the State law required that the CONSENT
Of the adjoining property owners shall be
first obtained, rs an act precedent te the
proposed vacation Of plat pr street that in
the present case, Mr. Dillon had not obtain.
cd such requisite conlent.
Aid. Davis moved that Judge Dillon be
allowed to present to the Council his views
and arguments upon the subject matter, be-
fore the Council.
Carried.
Whercupon Judge Dillon proce ele,l to
state to the Council - follows:
1T. That the State Law OF 1862. which lie
read. gave him (Diilonl the absolute right,
bsing the owner Of all of the land in the
addition, and the city h.virg expended no
money os labor on the streets. to vacate the
eans without consulting The council; that
hs had % vacated the same BY an instrr.
nens duly executed and recorded. Conse
quently II the Council should rescind theft
action. Il would not restore the plat or the
streets.
This wes question which only the courts
could settle The council cannot.
That he C0uros1 ho~:~. .--..1..s..
vacated the streets in July. and no rehearing
being applied for until November. long after
the time allowed bv the printed rules Of tn.
Council, and he. Dillon, aha, ing acted and
made improvements upon the streng b of said
vacation, the Council has now no l,gai ponsr
to rescind their action.
And this he contended was q legal cues.
ton, which could only be settled by the
courts
IL either OF those questions shall be set
tied in his favor that 10 an end of the case.
But u they should be settled against him he
would then not oppose . rehearing upon
the merita If the city should order Clifton
Avenue to be opened twould compel h,m to
bring suit against the city. II Il leaves
the parties to litigaie the questions in Court.
the city escapes litigation.
John N. Rogers, Esq, appearing q at
torney for OeO. L. Davenport, then proceed.
ed 70 saate TO the Council HE reasons why
The Coupcil mot only should not, but could
not comply With the prayer of the petition.
without doing IN act, which they could moi
lawfully do-lss, That
Il vas clear that she State lav gave the
light % Dillon to vscate the streets. whicS
light he bed asserted By cooplying with
provisions or I've law.
~, That the acston Of The Council vaca.
ting them was regular. The effect was thai
she lAsd sevested 70 The owner Of The I'd.
joining lots, that his title 10 this lAud Was ss
good . bic tisle 70 any other land and that
u dty eould Dos divese that tieleby looe
Afterwards feoclnding their action. Even Z
aaess keelsla1nSs os Con ress c01ld not do
nh.
Ord. That au osdioanes wadnot necessary.
On order Or res0lutios was just - eliectusl.
That any action, which the Council nigh,
take II the matter BY now attempting to
snde what they ehad done, either ;by reso.
iutioa or ordinance. would be equally nuga
tory and void - against the rights of Hr
. ~ a.