The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-02
PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

the sapreme ConrI.
Tomorrow the agument In the case Involving
the erection of the public buildings at the IN
tersection of Broad and Market streets will be
heard in the Supreme Court.
The following is the opinion Of Fairmount
Park Solicitor Coils upon the subject with the
endorsements of Hon. F. Carroll Brewster, Will
liam B. Mann, Esq, and Hon. William NJ
Meredith
PHILADELPHIA, October 81, 1S70.-Hon.
Henry NJ. Phillips, Chairman of Commit es,
Etc.-Dear Sir:-I have the honor to acknow-
ledge the receipt OF the resolution passed by
the Committee of the Public Buildings Commis-
sion, OF which you are Chairman, which reso-
luton is in the following words:-
"ResolUed, That the Solicitor be requested to
give his opinion on the legal questions involved
In selecting the particular site for the buildings
on Penn Square"
Having been present at the meeting of your
committee at which the resolution was passed,
i had further opportunity of learning upon
what particular questions my opinion was de-
sired.
The act under which your commission is
created directs that you Locate the public
buildings either Washington Square or Penn
Square, as nay be ascertained by vote of the
legally qualified electors of the city of Philade-
phia." A vote has been taken, and Penn Square
has been selected.
You are therefore required, within thirty days
from the day of election October ii, 1970), to
advertise for proposals for the erection of said
buildings upon Penn Square.
You have clearly the right to erect one, two,
three or four buildings upon either or all of. the
enclosures at Broad and Market streets; but the
act seems to contemplate the erection of the
buildings at the intersection of Broad street
with Market street, for it provides that In the
event of the ultimate selection of Penn Square
as the site for said public buildings, the said
commission shall have authority and they are
hereby empowered to vacate SO much of Market
and Broad streets as they may deem needful;
.I-l hat hA ctr
around said building shall not be of less width
than one hundred feet.
The only condition is that the qualified electors
of the city of Philadelphia shall give their assent
thereto. After full and free discussion OF the
whole subject they have given their assent, aud
you are new required to erect the public build
ings either upon one or more OF the four eDclo-
sures or at the intersection the latter being the
location most clearly indicated by the Act.
Ny attention has been invited to the act of
23d of March, 1866, "Authorizlng the improve
ment of Broad street, which prohibits the erec-
ton of any distractions upon that street. and it
has been intimated that said act was declared un-
constitutional by the Sapreme Court, In the
recent ease of Hammett VS.. The City (8 Am.
Law Reg. AID, commonly known as the Nicol-
son Pavement Case
By the provisions of that act, the city is ''re-
quired TO occupy and appropriate broad street
for its entire length, as 1t is now opened or may
hereafter be opened, and from curb to curb
thereof, for the uses aud purposes of public
drive, earriage-way, street, or avenue, and to
improve the said street or portions thereof from
time to time, and in whole or in part, with such
mode of pavement, paving macadamizing, gra-
yelling, or other roadway as may in the judgment
of the Select and Common Councils of said
city, be the best adapted to and for the uses aud
purposes aforesaid and for that purpose the
said Councils shall have (power), and are hereby
authorized to enact such ordinances and reso-
lutions with such conditions and stipulations as
may require the cost of said Improvements to
be paid for by the owners of property abutting
upon said street"
And the 4th section of the act creates a con-
tract between the Commonwealth aud the pro-
perty owners in the following words:-"That
upon the Improvement OF said street, or any
portion thereof as provided in the hrst section
hereof, and in consideration of the payment OF
the cost thereof by the owners of property
abutting theTeupon as aforesaid or upon and in
consideration of the contributions and payments
of the money agreed TO be paid, or as ascer-
tanned by jury aforesaid, no person or per-
sons, or corporations of any kind, nor the city
of Philadelphia, shall at any time hereafter be
authorized or empowered to locate, lay, con-
struct, or maintain any railroad or railway
tracks or other distractions, prejudicial to the
uses and purposes aforesaid, along or upon SAID
street or any portion thereof"
Under the authority conferred by this act, the
Councils of the city of Philadelphia ordained OF
July 8, 1867, ''that the said carriage way from
curb to curb, between Willow street and Co
lumbia avenue, shall be laid with the Nicolsor
pavement the cost OF said paving
Inot exceeding four dsllars per square yard
'to be paid for by the owners of property abut
ting on said street
Upon the completion of the pavement, certain
property holders declined TO paw their proper
fionate cost thereof, and municipal liens wer
filed against the properties of such persons, TO
the work and materials. Mr.. Barnabas Ham
nett was one of these, and in his affidavit o
defense, he takes the ground that property hay
ing heen teXed for one pavement Il cannot n
taxed for a second one, and that the act
unconstitutional as empoW ering Councils 10 Ia