The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-16

an obligation with he city to keep the street In
good order for three years after the paving is
/ think the word mmproved" applies to the
whole length Of Broad street. whether paved or
not and this is made clearer by the provisions re-
lotive TO the portion between Willow and Prime
streets.
do not think the twentieth section of the act of
April u, lo55 u. l., 2o9), nor the twenty sixth
section of the act Of the 18th May, 1856 Up. L.,
573) have any bearing on this case aud the fourth
section of the act Of 1866 gives ample power to
Councils "to enact all ordinances or resolutions
necessary and proper for the carrying into effect
the requirements, provisions, and purposes of this
aet," covering every thing that has been done by
them in this matter.
The ordinance provides that in Broad stree {, be-
| tween Willow street ard Columbia avenue, the
caLTiage. way from curb to curb shall be laid with
the Nicolson pavement, in Accordance with speci-
| fcations prepared by the Chief Engineer and Snr
| yeyor and to his satisfaction and approval The
cost OF SAID paving, exclusive of the street inter-
abutng upon said street as directed in section one
OF set of Assembly aforesaid" the contractors to
take IN pay for the paving of the intersections the
| eobble stones replaced by the Nicolson pavement
Ihis is in strict accordance with the act. The
second section directs the Department of High
ways TO enter into contract with the only persons
authorized to lay this pavement, Wprovided the
cost Of said work, including the grading materials
and workmanship, shall not exceed the sum of four
dollars the square yard" the contractor to keen IL
| IN coed order for three years
The contract was entered into by the Highway
department under this ordinances the assessment
bs at four dollars per square yard to be received
py me contractors In payment, and TO be collected
oy themi thus following the old practices as near
as possible.
In all this see nothing done by Councils, or
ther agents, exceeding the powers clearly vested
IN then' and must therefore refuse the injunction
asked for,
have not thought it necessary, having come TO
TINS conclusion on the merits, to consider the eIfso
OF the act OF Sh of April, 1916, and the case in 12
wright 439, In prohibiting an Injunction in this
case.
1 must however, be permitted to say that the real
objection appears TO be not the unconstitutonality
OF the law or the legnity of the ordinance or the
contract, but the expense which the property
owners must necessarily incur.
These owners, startled by the attempt to run
steam passenger railway down Broad to Green in
'front.' OF their property procured by the interVen-
ton OF Councils the passage of this act They did
not wish the dust or macdamized drive in the
centre, and this resulted in the present ordinance
and contract after fair and satisfactory trial on
one square of the street.
The defeat of the Central Passenger RAILWAY and
the passage OF this act securing in three years an
unln nterruped street or avenue of eleven and half
miles in length, raised the value of all the ground
fronting on this portion of the street.
Were the owners to pay nothing for this, and the
ultimate removal of the railroad nuisance from
Willow to Prime streetl The payment is the inn
the Legislative favor, granted at their earnest re-
quest, IL is small return for the present and fu-
tuTe benefits which they undoubtedly have and
Large owners of property on this portion of
Broad street have driven away improvements by
refusing TO improve sell. A strong instance is
found in the beautiful rows of buildings on west
Green street, which begin not at Broad street. but
square west of it,
individuals stopping public improvements have
no right TO complain when they are assessed for
their share of the cost of rendering the streets in
front OF them of greater value to the community
and TO the neighboTs who have co Vered their lots
with valuable and beautiful dwellings.
am fully convinced it is the real interest OF
these plaintiffs that the Nicolson pavement
should be lald as soon as possible.
therefore refuse the injunction and dismiss the
bill of the plaintiffs