The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-04-03
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1871.
THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

but be surprised at certain features of the
controversy about the site for the public
buildings. Before the October election the
total unftness of Penn Square, and the i'm
propriety of removing the public Offices and
courts SO Tar up town, were eloquently dwelt
upon by certain of our contemporaries in the
neighborhood of Sixth and Chssnut streets.
After the election the anti-Penn Squareites
adopted new line of action, and commenced
to denounce the proposed plan of the COM
missioners to place the buildings at the inter-
section of Broad and Market streets, and now
they have demanded that the commission
itself shall be abolished on the ground that
its creation was "a direct and fragrant attack
upon the fundamental principles of the Ame-
riean theory of government" There are
several very curious features to this last phase
of the public buildings controversy. to which
we invite the attention of our readers
First. No fault whatever was found with
the creation OF the commission by the anti
Penn Squareites previous to the October cleo
tion.
Second. Some of the most ardent advocates
for the abolition of the commission on the
ground that it is "a direct and fragrant, etc.,
were either the open advocates or the silent
supporters of the project to p'acs the govern
ment of the city of Philadelphia in the hands
of certain commissioners with far greater
powers than have ever been conferred upon
the Building Commissioners. What has the
Bulletin to say to this?
Third. A number of the ''friends of true
reform" who are now endeavoring to have
the Building Commission abolished as "a
direct aud fagrant," ETC., are themselves
members of commissions created by the
Legislature, and which, according to their
own theory, must be ''direct and hagrant, etc.
It is certainly poor rule that will not work
both ways.
, On this last point we cannot do better than
to quote from editorials of the Sunday Dis
patel of yesterday and yesterday week. The
Dispatch, referring to the meeting at Horti-
cultural Hall, on Friday, March "a, says:-
The following eminent citizens, who are opposed
to the Building Commission because sit was created
by the Legislature" were among the vce-presi-
dents Morton McMichael, member Of the Fair
mount Park Commission created by the Legislature
in pursuance OF ''a direct and lagrant attack upon
the fundamental principles of the American theory
N. B. Browne, ditto, ditto, ditto.
j. Gillingham Fell, commissioner and member Of
bly, being "direct and fagrant," etc. etc. etc.
James L. Claghorn, adouble-double commissioner
being upon the Paramount Park Commission and the
Board OF City Trusts which are "direct and agrant"
ETC. etc. etc.
The chief advocates before the Legislature
for the abolition of the Building Commission
were Messrs. ]. @. Bullitt and j. X. Findlay,
who took upon themselves to represent at
Harrisburg the latest conclusions of the
Washington Square property y-holders, being
supported by the countenance of Mr.. John
L. Lawson, who accompanied them. The
Dispatch of yesterday referred to these gen.
tlemen as follows
Messrs. Bullitt and Fndlay found their strong
point in assertion that such thing as the crea-
tion OF a commission OF this character was unpre-
Cedented, high stretch OF power, etc, etc. This
may be considered extraordinary We are not dis
posed to find fault with Mr.. Bulitt for his ignorance
of the law There is an old adage which says, zig
norance of the law eXCuseth no man" But that
means "no man who is not lawyer" Men wac
are lawyers are well known to be ignorant
OF the law, else why the necessity Of 50
many lawsuits in which one-haf oil the
lawyers employed assert that the law is
exactly contrary to what 1t is decided to be? We
can excuse MIR. Bullitts ignora9ce, therefore; hut
we are not disposed to excuse the ignorance of Nj
burg trip, John L. Lawson. Both OF these gentle
men personally know that the law, which they de-
examped in all previous experience, IS no
novelty On the NTH day or April, 1861
the Legislature, against tne protest or tne COun-
ellis OF the city OF Philadelphia, created a
commission to build a bridge over the river
Schuylkil, az South street. with authority to
loans 10 pay for the expense OF the WORK, and to
compel the city Of Philadelphia to pay the interest
and principal, and whatever expenses the co minis
sioners should call upon them to pay. Against that
law the city of Philadelphia was most obStinately
opposed. c. uncils refused TO do anything which
the commissioners ordered. They refused to pay
the interest on the loans which the commissioners
created. Al length the LATTER went to the Supreme
COurG, ana, after full argument, il was decided
that the Legislature had right to create such a
commission, and that the city was bound
to pay whatever r6qusitlons they made. Among
the commissioners personally named in the South
Street Bridge act are John X. Flnday and John l..
Lawson. Thsy partic ipated in all the controversies
which arose between them and Councils, and they
are members 81 the South Street Bridge Commls.
sion now. As we said before, we can pardon Mr..
Butt, who perhaps never heard OF the South Sire et
Bridge Commission But suggest that Ii is rather
inconsistent for Messrs. Findlay and Lawson t.
adopt a line o. argument which they know is
founded on gross error.
When the anti-Penn Squarites cannot dc
better than this, they had better give the
whole matter up as bad job, for they will
never be able to convince the 81, ,625 citizens
who voted for Penn Square last October thai
the present agitation is anything more thar
an impudent attempt on the part of certain
property holders to defeat the wishes of the
people of Philadelphia, in order that they
may enjoy monopoly of the business of let
ting offices at exorbitant rates to lawyers ant
others having business with the courts ant
municipal departments.