, 1869-08-15
The Hearing Continued.


upon the application for a" Injunction ~ restrain
al the yarlous |n.tica from Acting under the Lake
Front tiil-,hc ratlr,,a roI,l'ar from taking Fo@"
Sc sion Of the land granted 1T the L.sE-lac:: u
i.s iat. fesston for depot puEphsea Thts arri'cH-
ZION vs7 tasei upon the bill c!cd Oh Friday. OF
The rat Of the United stat:7 nsealy mentioned
In T.sR TR:Eukz. The p.e~nf d"'E1Id Tss, of
."Il-o. fur Ii temporary injunction, AID It WAS
nrg1:et so!cY nPon :he iii. IT, re- appeared for
tho United States District A,tc.nc5 G:oscr and
George Campbell, E4l.; for lhe t'ty s. \. 1s"n
and ". L. Goady, ESQ: for sac Railroad eoI-
Jaute.t 4. II. Mack uud Il. it. browning E.Fs.
The ILL, as Dic, Affects. Gr.t, The grounaJn THE
limits Of Eoyt Dr3rtk.tn ruserrHt,nns now orcH-
pied ty The Illinois C:a:rai Ea'lEo.a tan21ay;
stccch - much Of t!.n ju.f}ha 81 The Lind .Fa1t-
I'd y the acf cf The nsi f"ssn!! Of the Legislature
~ i,r 1llree !arua'l cus;aulcs fur tue purpose Of
erec;!hR 8 JA:s~Egcs depot, o. lies within the
io1t I}..ArioFn rrscfy1;luH which " The property
!,ttsceE Randolph aitl No lAon s..ces cxtcnicsl
cast; third. the lake hca outsh1c Of tie present
hrcakwa:rr, or .ish: OF Ta5 n sn:5 II
1,as, This htlag lenle'l, Of .hc
1u!an,s Ccptra ItAIstosll b.twet:n the
soth side Ct tte EIser anu pon: utat tts I"iiilh
scIec Of the railroad co:n1an5. aai extending eae
,n.lc eastward. fhe Issuing 6: al fnJllc:l3n was
nut uor asked Hs TO the matter Of tile ohst7nc'
tons 10 navigation asEtl ms r'n 't4I,,tut nn'l"E
thr GrunI Of the lakr hcd. or, tts to the 1uod TT
trrscht In occupancy Of the ratlruAt cola1fics ~
their tracksr deno1s, ETC.
Cd tue rat d,s Ct ias t0e" !! h1aiea e GPsn'ns % ;
.tatrmente, charges and pr Ftcrn q: tac bill,
Uu tue psrl os tho ra!ir,a', t'c'tn!nnts. It vas
Cnn,.cciior thoa. in:rrterc, ccalsr :ee.c W..
adequate remedy nj Inv.
Tic nrEumcn' on tht. SIDE wns c.ote'S eerilntst
u tue s,tu proposition leIt, unlrr tho NAiyar oI
demand iVr injunction AZ = !l tho property -,ot
lncIued III The 'asc uctt thr "ha.c st.i,5 o"t o1t
sitl Tie k'o.tloa Ia,; .hat ,sto W. ~ ptoncrsy
aLic amaue shown . ,u, 10 11a qesu do I1s ntr;.
fore Injunction wou' lot no iss1r' ' II was sso
| ulg,d stas sLn ot.!ect Of Ills ,Focc~dlns Is TO
we, , "HE '-sive, cuacttncns through a court af
eaIl's. " de< falAtt.l tlnt the st /. tlc.l.;
| tnt1ona1, ard, therefore, rDi In such ca.e the
1o,.r would retusc the Injunction. ~ vas 'looc.
,ne eass .! ef's1 Ma,6 T. fGTs sis ~
Lct!on to ccclltu E0tlar low Unconstitutional,
| because II nadc no provision for thr payfneui al
| held lint an act Of tic Lcs!saiusc ought not 10
| II deched to be unconstitutional upon psc:m-
iEAr3 hearing eefole N c1ntasna1loa Of the nna
MeHts VI tht bIL
In this case the propolis.ons mails were thst the
bill did rot present such . ease ef inClinent dta-
ger and ts1eparatle mischief Is warrants the L.
| test=1rnce es the Chaurelor: and. secondly. that
III order to Er1nt tie Erit the Court Is asked to dg
eide that The legislative act Was nncnustifuttona!
auc Yo!!. Which. under shc authority cttel, 1t
would pot DO on l,artM 1eartaS II Sas also
presented that tAIs Was bill fled 10 behalf Of
Properly oxueIa who H~re themselves competent
70 sus n1 not to protect any property Interest Of
tie United statea The bill! not contstnn- auy allie
Eat.cu supporting the claim Of such property it-
| tere.t In tile ccu'le!nsnts. II was arEuetl upon
tbts .1Dpos.uou that the United States had made
o stn I'LL IL III sv
the Eeaauh that II va. made up Of Soncl lsonA OF
law, shstesd Of statements VI facts alleged 10 be
tri:e-
The question Ct the rtxh. 10 en1olu the sey-
era: PARTIES was eoGSldcred. ~ to the
eity I! vas ccn's.ded TINT. taking the
hi 10 bc true, The fee, leng In the Cn!:ed states,
alleged ii the bill, Its deed woa!i not, In Law,
arect tho nights Of the complainant or owners al
property eon:'sao9e, aud II the hi'' be true that
there wAs mere nigh. OF Possession In the city a.
custodian fer the Tntt"d States, TIC o<ae.s Of the
fee, then It parted With nothing und boand no
delivering ts iced tqult c!sl1u>, tu, nats rs-Ire
AT a~nrd OF payment tor past casto<l,aash.p,
leaving all parties privately a1c'c<i, or the United
sta.ts, to the!- remedy undcr the !aF regulating
condemnation Of land TOR public nscs.
I, was urgped that the question as to Who holds
the legal iillt to the coutFo'etied properly was
MES however, holding tha: TIC c:iy has the title
1fe rrr;trty Was originally held, 10 fer. 70: the
beneat of the States aote. the cesslon IRON VIZ.
E:nia. aad twas urged that vheu the Tinted
S.a:cs parted with II. xhc.hc. bS decd o. dcHca-
ton. tic trust cetcrGi:cd an the tltIe festel LII LIE
s!ate, sni then the TIE furt. ,s5a 70 tae Ill
E.Giplty OF caickgo, hch l,clt the ltnd In ttast
Ter tft juS, subject 10 the conrEp! Of tho agents
OF The ipt1'e, the Le1tsat=rr. II this were the
81! h2H so rsa:s ;sis - 2IoreJ' T. "a 1s ,oaI
l.lc aef the Only right Accorded by tla BILL mat
Of lLalluS municipal regulations ETC.. WAS reser7
As tu tho rights Of th,rsi paTt:cs ihe BILL alleged
that the pqschaseN pay1n3 an :ncrcase1 pslrc
1hes:or, uader the dedication, obtained IA ease
Tlls tasGEtnt vas Supported By the fl<ttc1ti0u;
he declaration OF HI agent I'D hy tso c:ameI;
Implied coEt:ants In the deeds e7rcatc1 10 tac
letctastss q property II ~ this were trac. tn.
CoI1t would no; interfere n tbs case, bat only
upon ease 1cade ~ tile PARTIES ~hu wcfe DEM
niaed. but this easement If 2cqu!rel hJ the
rT6t neEH was not 0Qr he, essarT 10 the en
3eFmeu; OF tie proFeHJ granted 1t vas 9 rto2'
tEty Ii prospect. which - AL tDcorporeal lers1l-
ta.uCct, within the statute Of frauds and onfi - te
conEeEet b! instrument uu'f-r seal IN this case
the t'nie1 s:a:e. did not covenant hy deed 10
pe1pesua:c thte View Of the lake, All It bad
done 70, .hc frart would hare hren void, because
Lt Tie dedication u tie patlic, 1t Lad ceased to
be The fo.c owter Of the estate. That the CUT
look xas nos &c incident Of tac SIa3s WAS argued
cesar to the cD,osreut o! the properly Eln:ed.
i VA slso AsGued that The act 0: dedication
passed 10 Pt!fase property right
A. to nc incldea; of ad5acee ct pnce sceased
oJ The dedication. Il was conle1dca tnat tne laT
a. announced n Ohtr i State Re?.. 11s' wa4 co'-
be tcot By he purchase any private Tight bl1
simply tE rrssoE q Advantage 10 be 4cs4T.A from
proximity ~ certain park
szRuei tha. there were none, IN this
particular case Even II tho title MS "a
the lIlNG Ss1sc3 As tF-StCC {19 dcrcd II i1E Gt.p
II had 70 rroPe7y larercst fer Which Il would ls
eltt:.ed to COMPENSATION, and TIE State. exercising
the Fight OF eminent domain oter lis public prop
estJ could change the public use 70 which the
prppe1fJ Tns dedicated.
The CouI1 treFes.ed that there were but TWO
!utst:on* 10 the case: !. Whether there was :
dedication to1 special purpose. aud whether. L
there Wal, II can lie diverted frpm that purpose
2 Whether, tn case tae1e has Teen llEerslon,
the or1Etpal Proprietor ttfe United StA.et} coald
intervene. hy l. 10 project the rtght4 Of fde rut
lie OF Of pr1E2tc tndlFdaais as the ca*e might be
II the prlnclrle be correct t11t l2ad dl1ca 70
particular purpose could NOT te dlycr;ed IRON that
purpose. .hcrr coad he NJ doua: that taerr WAS
remedy for any one who m. injured ~ the dtScr-
fIon; b1', teea, there would t~' a question as 70
WHO WAS Toe rr"pe1 Tarf 10 AFrfs for the enfnree-
lat1t Of the reneds, whether ii shuull te the
o1.E.aA! owner or tie injured party.
II seemed to bin taa: tac doc:.:1c that Pop.
erty dedicated 10 Futi1c uEts coad &c dlse11ed, as
arE1cd br defendants, E1cst hc held s.'5Hcato tac
qualification that IL ii not change IL oEenAl
fern shat It Vas not diverted iIun lta original
PURPOSE; and subject also TO the Condlt1ou fhst
The change Gid noi acct hcs'::re1 .snA y ~!
were Dedicated to public 14"s. raf1tcalhf Aoa
special wherefore ftey r41uiH no1, 4fSh l.! tne
city, tt Changed m the -cor9Nlod.i4n OF .2Af-
kct II tIch should blockade the ts9rHor1faTr ne
app7enenicd change Of TIC rnE1s*e nf the a~dl-
eaiiuu rntt alxAts bc consistent with tue use
ovls!uali, iateadcd ro bc El4.lc o the Property IN
the dedication.
The Court rostrone-1 further constd.rsloa Of
The c4Ese that au.h9-tie, might be furn'shed
n, On iwn points. nrsF, ~ II :ne r;t-cs Il! thr
icdtcat.n III I: RiA .E- upon the r.:hss u .aa
public: second u to tho party ~ita whoaa y tha
remedy, II ttfFe IA q Violation 1t hnT right
TIC i'op:t, uron the nt,eH.H'rr-f :-,t'~4 ~"
usucl orses, that tho leiraaalts Do na7sh. which
spail prejudice t1c right Of complainant. Fh":r IS
a ,rru!tar Importance II, thts ofdrr. 'r-rsn-- Mon.
d. tx ,he day uxra t~ The Sts law t"s ire c3c-
cu;ou and Ge.l,cs5 0! the citrs deejs.