The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-13

before the Committee by the Assistant City
Solicitor, Mr., Sellers, who, while iranKly &C
knowledging himself in favor OF the appropria
ton OF the ground for the purposes named in
the ordinance, at a reasonable and just compen-
sation to the owners, and basing his estimate
upon a close examination and q fair comparison
OF the testimony submitted to the jury, values
the property at S340, 900, showing an excessive
award of between $40, 900 and $50, 900.
The undersigned do not deem it irTevelant to
a report on this subject, If they show that this
property was never, up TO the time OF the passage
of the ordinance, valued at more than three hun.
dred thousand dollars, although proven IN part
by other than the testimony ELECTED by the
present investigation. A special committee OF
Common Council, of which the present presiding
officer OF that Chamber was chairman, to whom
the ordinance appropriating the ground was
referred, reported, latter q careful examination
of the premises" and having the written opinion
OF Mr.. Hines, the Surveyor of the District, that
the cost OF the purchase of said ground will not
exceed the sum of three hundred thousand dol
lars.n (Appendix TO Journal of O. Q. 1854, vol. !,
p. 485.)
To show further, however, that the Mayor of
the city, when the matter came before him
officially, did not agree with the Committee In
so far as that the real value OF the properly
would be the mean Of the award, the under
signed append the concluding extract from the
veto message OF Mayor Henry, of March 10th,
lS64:-"Unless sum be determined upon as
limit which the city will pay, the award OF the
Jury may and probably will far exceed the rea.
In view of what has taken place this Ian.
guage Is prophetic, and the Councils OF that
wear would have done well to heed the warning
thus uttered, and by limiting the amount to be
paid for the property In question, would have
saved the city from one to two hundred thou
sand dollars.
According to the ioint report of the Committee
on Water and City Property in 1862, with the
exception oil some old brick houses on Coates
street, and new hotel on Landing avenue, the
ground was worth little more than if vacant"
(App. to Journal of 5. c.. 1862, vol. /, No. 1907.
Yet, while the improvements in the city at the
public expense bring us four years later to
examine into an award for damages against the
city of nearly half million of dollars the tes-
timony OF the assessor in that locality would
make it appear that the additional revenue so
generally promised as the reward Of large appro
priations Tor public improvements, Doth legiti-
mate and otherwise, has not been forthcoming
in this case; and the undersigned cannot refrain
from taking advantage of the opportunity pre-.
sented of embodying the foregoing reference to
this important matter in the present report.
Inasmuch as the matter OF repeating the ordi-
nance of June 28, 1864, was referred to this Com
mttee Of which the undersigned are members,
by the Select Council, one or more meetings
were devoted to its consideration, and the at
tendance Of the City Solicitor and his opinion
| upon this point, was requested and obtained,
MIR. Brewster reiterating substantially the opl-
mon expressed in his reply TO similar inquiry
| by the Committee on Law, viz THAT the mere
| cepeal Oh the OTuluduC6 NOulu uOt OS dJtCuuCu
with damages to the city, adding that such a
course would tend to strengthen the hands OF
| the law officer OF the city in the prosecution OF
the case before the Courts, while it was admitted
that such a repeal would not debar prosecution
by owners OF property for real or supposed
damages by reason OF the breaking off of pro-
ceedmgs under and by virtue OF the ordinance
| appropriating the ground to the use OF the city.
Whether or not the public good TO be derived
from the appropriation of this property for the
purposes named in the ordinances, will warrant
| the necessarily enormous outlay to be entalled
on the Taxpayers, already GENEROUSLY burdenej
in pursuance thereof, and if not, whether it is
| sound policy to risk prosecutions for damages
| by such of the owners as would consider them
| selves aggrleved bv such corresponding action
of the city authorities, are questions the under
signed prefer to leave to the members OF the
respective Chambers, that they may for them
| selves determine, after a careful consideration
with the flood of light that has been opened
upon this whole matter, what the best Interests
of their constituents demand at their hands.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE J. HETzELL,
j. B. HANCOCK,
| II. MARCUS.