The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-03-07

out, that II careful poll were made, the number
Of feet front on Broad street in favor Of the bill
would be still more overwhelming, and Of the
assessed value Of the property and Improvements
on the street, owned by the friends Of the mea
sure equally as overwhelming, while the resi-
dents daily experience the annoyance of the
rails, and are unwilling and outraged witnesses
to cruelty, abuse, and maltreatment Of the ami
mails attached to and drawing the cars, almost
without exception.
To the fourth-''There is the highest sutho-
rity for asserting that the proposed ordinance,
II passed, would be Illegal" we ansWer:-That
If an ordinance 1t could not be enforced for the
removal of the City Railroad from Vine to
South streets, or below; but under the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case Of Kerbaugh
and Branson and the Southwark Railroad III
Wrights Reports) an ordinance requiring the
removal Of all switches from the main track
upon the street into the coal yards and ware
houses Of the remor strants could he enforced
whenever enacted And the same ordinance
could require the connection of the South
wark Road with the City Road at South street
TO be severed. Thus Councils possess the
power, whenever they may choose 10 exercise
it. of rendering the cOal-yards and warehouses
its treasury than now, and the main tracks
practically understanding rust and decay
to effect what the ordinance of 1858 failed 70
do. We freely acknowledge the hardship and
inconvenience which some of the remonstrants
would suffer from any hasty or unreasonably
short action under the bill in removing the rails
and interfering with their business before locs-
tioDs could be obtained else where. Councils
have not abused their power thus far and If
animated by the spirit which enacted the ordi.
nance of 1868, should insist upon the renon-
strants indicating say one or at m ost two years
to be given them before the rails be removed.
Certainly, if they are not prepared to make any
fair and conoiliatory suggestions not injurious
TO the purpose of the bill they, so few in num-
bei, should not be longer permitted to stand in
the way of the wishes of the whole community,
Of the best interests OF the city, and of the anx-
ious desire of hundreds OF their nsighbors to
enjoy and profit by the removal OF q nuisance
which has depreciased their property and been
q source of great personal discomfort. HoTever
this is not proposed ordinance" but pro-
posed act of the Legislature, for which the ap-
proval of Councils is asked. 1t is submitted that
if the law be passed it will be able to accomplish
what it proposes.
To the ifth-"The expense of the proposed
removal, If made, will be enormous, and that
1t is not right to place in the hands of any ten
men that can oe found interested in suburban
property on Broad street. the power of COM
pelling the city to incur such expense for their
private advantage" we answer:-The expense to
the city may at best be the cost of matchmaking
or improving the intersection OF streets, only
portion of which need be done. say TWENTY-FIVE
or thirty feet of the centre, such provision of
ten men having the power to compel. the city to
incur expense exists in the proposed act.
To the sixth-'That their property will be de-
creased in value by the removal of the railroads
and tracks, and the consequent removal qf
business Hfrom the street." we answer:-That
this is only the opinion of the remoastrants,
sincere, it may be; but have fifteen owners,
with the aid OF seventy.one tenants, the right,
from mere apprehension of such results, To
persist in keeping q public highway forever
obstructed, and SO large portion of its extent
useless for all but their own purposes, against
the already expressed opinion OF Councils in
the ordinance Of 1868, and those who have for
years and do now earnestly advocate a restora,
ton of the street TO its original and legitimate
uses?
REPLY TO THE PRoTBsT OF CITIZENS OF PHILADEL-
PHIA NOT OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON BROAD
STREET, OR DOING BUSINESS THEREON
To the first reason OF protest, as viz:-"lst
That they believe the maintenance of the rail-
road upon Broad street to be alike necessary
and desirable; that BY it coal is distributed to
families in the southern part of the city, at an
average of seventy-fve cents per ton cheaper
than it could be done by any other MEANS" we
answer:-That against the three hundred and
seventy citizens who beIisoe that the rail
road tracks on Broad street ought to be main
tanned, we offer the olTowing:-
''The undersigned, not owners Of property
nor engaged in business on Broad street. but
having knowledge OF and interest in the gene
raj business, welfare, and Improvement of the
city, and conversant with the wishes of the
citizens respectfully rerrecent to your honor.
able bodies that the Improvement of Broad
street and the removal of the railroad tracks
switches, and, turnouts therefrom would be
hailed as public blessing, beneficial to the
owners OF property upon and contiguous to it
giving to the people one street Tor their own
use enjoyment, and, recreation, free from the
monopoly and legalized nuisance of corpora
tions.n t.., ..-.1g ~.
Signed by several thousands of our most pro-
minent and well-known business firms, manu-
factuTers merchants, and citizens. f..t,re
Also the following resolutions, passed at .
meeting of the members Of the Franklin Hose
Company, whose engine-house is located on
Bread street, near Fitzwater. These resolutions
speak for themselves Iaa
"Whereas An earnest and determined effort is
now being made to have the railroad tracks re-
moved from Broad street, and that magnidcent
/ - . 20 ffv a1r.