Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-01-20

S86, O00, zoo worth OF property 10 the eoun-
ty, but that is just as important as If it
was ten thousand million dollars-tt is
their ali; that Is the amount involved.
ST am q lawyer, myself, and / act to the
best interests of my clients. We must
expect that We n carefully guard in
dividual interests when great public In
terests are ct stake. Then, h question
for us will be Il try and ascertain what
will be for the best interests of both. If
the matter was Our own, would we agree
In less than thirty days? I don't think
there is any individual that owns proper
ty who would agree to act in a matter of
so much importance inside of from three
to six months. The matter is pressing
upon US TO have a courthouse. We owe
IL IS a debt to the people we represent to
be careful Of their interests"
Captain Lsnow was called on to say
something on the subject. He was
squarely against taking any old building.
The idea of putting up a Courthouse cut
on Adams street il ridiculous. When I
came here, thirty-ive years ago, the spot
where the Ohio depot now stands would
be selected then as a proper place for q
Courthouse. Who can tell where would
be the place fifty years from nOwf We
may AVE a population of half q million
here by hat time, and the Court house
that you think would be fine now and
properly situated, might have to be leased
out for a hospital outside the city. There
are none Of these rickety old buildings
worth the having. / would not take
them as a gift; and yet the county will
have to lay out $4,000 on any one
Of them before 1t will be dt to hold a
court in. Your architects tell you that il
would cost $3.50, 900. The interest on this
Is SIS, 600. Our Court now costs US $40. 500.
The new arrangement, instead OF being a
benefit, would be an actual loss Of $4,000
annually, even if you had ready essh TO
pay for the work; and the estimates are
not too low, which is invariably the case.
But you will have to sell about S4O0 0O0 of
your bonds to raise money to build this
Courthouse, which, at the usual interest,
will draw $4,000 from you each year
nearly three times the present cost OF our
Courts. Then where is the advantage2
The interest Of the taxpayers is to be con-
suited as we'll as the convenience Of the
lawyers. I am not opposed absolutely to
a C0urt-hOuse. On the contrary, L am for
it; but not in our present financial en-
barrassmsuts. / want 20 see a c0urt-
house erected that shall be an honor to
the county. I don't care it it costs a
quarter of a million, aye, half a million;
but II shall be some years from now when
we shall have gotten over our embRrrass-
ments. But at present We are in no con-
dition to do anything Of that sort.
Squire WaIlacs's propositiOnw twas adopt
ed and then he submitted another, as a
sequel TO the hrst.
The committee appointed under this
are e. McDavitt, Eugene Magevney and
W. Wallace.
SQUIRE VILLAGES OTHER RESOLUTION.
It appearing to the Court that various
propositions relating to the Court build
ing, etc, have been submitted to this
Court that q urFTunfffna nf . nnnaIgf-
ing Of be appointed who shall exam
inc into the prOpriety of making any
change prior to the expiration of Ia
terms of lease under which the county
holds the building at present used for
county purposes; If a change at pres
snt be considered advisable, to carefully
examine the various propositions and
submit a full report as TO price and terms
OF each proposition, and report the plans
and specifications tor changes necessary
to convert the proposed buildings into
rooms suitable for court purposes and
offices. with entire costs of such changes;
and report further as to the prOpriety of
rejecting all or any of the propositions
which have been or may be made; and as
to the ~pr0priety of advertising for plans,
etc, and all other matters pertaining to
the whole subject, at the April term of
the COurt for its further consideration
and action.
Passed; and the following Committee
appointed: s. MOssby, j.. NJ. Provine
aud E W. Caldwell, together with the
Chairman and County Attorney.
A proposition to appoint a Committee
of five tor much h same purpose, to re-
port the third Monday in February, was
voted down by FOrgey, York, Giles, Rose,
Winters, MOncrief, Sueed, Wallace,
Crews, Allen, Walker, Holman, HOegel,
Brown, Burke, Elliott, Moore, Miller,
Gibson, Brooks and II. G. Massey-2l.
None for it.