, 1873-09-01

yato rerHona, md not particularly for tho bono
fit Of the public I ooftan1y noyor heard of any
part Of tho roitH boinY turned ovor to tho public
hlr. Hiddlo is vol aware TINT, II tho facts+
{t without I, eontrnndIction, ato properly brought
boforo the Public, llin railroad must loayo olark
street, and that faIBe representations nlono cnfl
koop the posBoagion Of tho street IN tho hauds of
tito Company. IsomotimoB wonder II intlIvitiu-
ala havo any rights that tho officers Of this rail-
road aro q, bonnd to rcspoct: Ono thing III cer-
strcet havo boon doprivcd Of tho uuo
Of thoir utrcet, and tho hailroad Company aro
not satisfied to rim their stoam-carH In tho
ntroot, but havo. contrary to tho ordinances Of
the city and In defiance OF tho city authorities.
street. in front Of tho lots Of these same otizens
tho superintendent SO vilitios and refuse either
to ront or purchase lots to put thor buildings
on. Or romove thom from tho street, aftor having
n lien oGt TGtepeat.oay nod for hooPng them thore
lehs whom contending with this corporation.
They havo tllus far regarded nelthor tic righta
ct individuals NOR tho orlinancoB Of tho oity.
Ihey have not only taken the atroet, but havo
right to ,,n tho street. Tho law of God
says: "Thou shalt not Rtoal;" another law
Says "Thou shait not kill - both Of which
arc. or ought to be, in full force, nevor having
ordinance giving tho Rock Island Railroad per-
mission to run on CLARK Btrebr. They certainly
have taken half Of the valuo Of tho lots fronting
on tho street, without tho ownors consent land
l., supposo that Superintendent Riddle would
,lke 10 purchase at tho dopreoatod prico, caused
BY the wrongful not of the corporation ho ropro-
BentH) aud they have, by running in tho street,
unnecessarily m taken tho livos Of mnny In
ing him one Of our Aldermen, for / think he no
longer h belongs tous, his constituontH-romarked
70 thought "Our complaints wero chronic"
y We n think our grievances arc. We Ind supposed
y sne ausy OF tho city authorities to prosecute
and aomo OF tho citlzons aggrievod not only had
to mike the complaint, but bud to fco attornoys
to HOO TINT this Company oboyod the law. But
to no purpose. The uBe OF our property ib
;n%,a w9nta to the tn Company moro than sll tho fines
pay thom. hopo this Superintendent will
hereafter connno himHe1f to facts, 1t iB more
mornl. Misrepresentation will not help him
personally, If they do hiH corporation and
think, t whom exposed, as thoy may be, it will not
i own Q little property on Clark stroot, pur-
chased with tho Understanding that 1t was ono Of
the boat streets in Tie city. Whom purchased
property vas no higher on State street than OH
can, II they havo any aeBiro 10 put Their I buildI
ings and track on their own land, purchase it
for one-third less than on State strcot,
which depreciation Ia wholly owing
to their own acts; and, il they would
street. 1t would double tho property ut onco Is
IT right, Mr. Riddle, that your Company should
claim 1t for nothing II you need tho property,
ought you not to pay somewhere near what tho
property would bo worth were your railroad re-
moved and, fnot your company, who should pay
for tho Injury done by the acts Of your company
Il tho city havo given you tho right, ought they
to pay for being 80 generous with ot1ors' prop
orty. One who owns property on South Clark
stroet would like these questions in law md
ethics definitely answered. ].