New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-05-25
yuR pIFTu-AvR. WIDENING PROJECT
,1,-tiug Of the spccini Committee Of the Com
mon CounciI-ArGument For nDd Against
the ure-Hcmonstrnuces by Judge HiI-
ton, r.. W. sIousbton, Mr.. Mott, and Others
peoIy o. VIZ. g.. II. Purser.

ton, r.. w. sIousbton, Mr.. Mott, and Others
Reply OF Ur. q. IL. Purser.
Al noon. Yesterday, the Joint Special Committee
,, Boards Of Aldermen and Councimen met pursuant to
adjournment give opportunity 70 those opposed TO Tie
protected alteration Of Fh-aye. to be heard large nun
property owners Oh THAI avenue and others Heroseu
Alderman RYras the Chairman Of the Committee stated
hat ihe three points on which the committee oostou 20 nea
argument and which they commended the attention OF
.rose interested were these;
Why property owners on The line o. TINS avenue 9noee
p, pc p'v.s.en OF ~ 60 9 ,is sve@pe for co1rvaris
nyrrc . occupy such with extensive az asr soop
i-c VOCATION positive aud weleahlshed law which oay
prints Occupation o hve t from e ns OF the house o 'o'i
porro thu dest avenues Of tie city . ,,. "a
,er1d On WHIST sni under what authority pIopeu
such singular violation Of liberal privilege and o'a o"fea0
fl Why q, living owning 9TorsFy 90 the F "
proper Just equal the exclusion Of citizens ana properly
40, te rcadi"r Of these questions Judge HnToN was
beard The following the substance Of his remarks he
aid think when be brs heard tlst tll' be il;
passed by the Common COHno that tney eo4u So 49,
arnesf Indeed DC could believe now II there Were
ss igt possl6y be- brought to look some
snc than practical JOKE blt ~ Ntlt q Joa;e ~
ace 60 face the substantial properly holders OF this cay VINO
ora demonstrate against aud are determined 70 resist
M uyheard.o scirreA scheme for the contamination OF
which 10 LIVING being had asked but against which All parties
s.ted protest II was scheme TO rum me most megnin
nt street on THIS Continent and despoi OF Us most con
ous s d. desnoiled Of lose world be- that in
s 9soved v as interfere with the interests the
,ye niorerty.owneIs who videned
W. Is wide enough al practical p1rpOsesi Why inter
with the rights Of toe properoWner on thus avenue
sid refrain taking similar sction toward other avenues
streets than this having more travel and really
requiring widening far the accommodation OF tfadei -
Alderman RYEEs would inform han that the Committee dld
Dol look merely Of those holding property on
e but Of the public az large who used the
and that these latter interests were paramount 70 those
Judge HmToy hoped the Common Council would bc content
tle 10 IT, and simply require buildings here
s!fc- made 20 be COZ fined within the legal me
81 H. " sIOUGHToS said he resident Of the avenne
apd nc tlocght he kew as wei as y one NE wants OF hoe
40 used this avenue for purposes Of travels II mad never been
crowded except On occasions q procession &C. wen al
more or less hronged friend o. his ~ Boston
folnm had mentioned what proposed was asonhed
Strangers visiting city, who competent judges regard
90 ae most magnificent street 10 ihe "9ra ana Wo1 oGA
little lees than suicidal destroying one OF the
c-f beauties OF tie city The scheme was violation OF gooo
Alderman RYrns-That is just transposng matters It is
s property have violated the Law and acted IN
STorcHrov resumed It was an act Of bad faith in the
cy The property had been permitted 10 do thus for
? years without inter anu custom ana ne Ispse u
lad sanctioned their acts Those ornaments which It
lions 20 construct They addition not only 10 the
1ssu bu the property Of the city by drawing merchants here
Mr MOFI-Tle Common Council are invested WITH power
The simply trustees 70 act FOR the benefit OF tie
gave the residents the rght "a use fifteen feet OF
hr Sidewalk The ordinance Of e1s confirmed u property
Dvn-t IN those rights and puts IL ont Of the power Of the
Common Council Eauy interfere with the same subject
M HSEY BrRo said he did not before tie Commites
oppose tie scheme Ihat he was property owner on the
,ve1sc and that be did believe that any Of the gen
enrn that opposed the imagined that ~ would be
conclusive 10 wOud be as consistent 70 Oh
t-at M sur with an nsrv paint brush endeayOr
carry tbs proposition he had been over the larger por
Europe ana had street equal IN beauty 10
Fiithave This had been called scheme
iO, and also a "jUke" and be warned the common Conn
81 exceedingly care; Of what they did N tins matter
thew would 20 superseded by CONFUSION consisting OF
en VITO would only honest but tie time have
and scrutnzns eye upon the expenditures
Of the public moneys
bbed IDEAS which would be decidedly repugnani 70 the
me Ory ae of this large metropolis The gentle
an c,ne osieusihy advocate the claims Of the resi-
the avenue but practically Dis remark were most
aiory Of the people the great City New
Yo.S lad been asserted this proposition was
gsled ioT Who the best judges OF the necessity OF
h Improvement We're they toe residents the avenue No,
guar Of the people and for the purpose OF novaB
fag Of the people OF his large CITY generally
VIZ should the property the have al 70
needed reQurcdf II possible he
would ike aTraDgeen made between the Com
g0unci property by which such portions
yards which the occupants do not OWL be pur
chased by the city.
power sell portion OF the tthaYe and were not al
position either 10 give title.
Nj rUsEg said the Legislature could take care Of that
Mi NOIEs willing 70 leave tie whole matter IN The
sands % the State legislature
Alderman IIERs desired that an! gentlemen were present
wished make any suggestions they would do now
responding Alderman RYEs said be would take
Is inform those present that the Committee had
I'll the information wished which prepare report
% submitted the Common Council but that IT, n tue
should have suggestions 70 offer ne
s0ud DO by ating with David l. Valentine esq
with either Of TIE members oftbe Committee
1hersupon tLS Committee adjourned.