The Rock Island daily Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1872-1873, 1873-05-15

lie SnOufu iidNe the dement, OF that DOUBT
For although the rule of construction of
private grants, if the meaning of the
words be doubtful, is that they shall be
taken most strongly against the grantor,
an opposite rule prevails in cases OF
grants made by sovereign power. In
the latter, when there is doubt, the con
structiOn is made most tayorably for the
Sovereign and most strongly against
the grantee. NILS, ct al VS.. The Conn
y Of s. Clair, ct al, Gilm., 22I
But think the language of the Section
relied on by Compliments itself removes
all doubt. For by it the right to select
the place of landing is not given absolute
| ". that is, absolyed from all obligation to
regard the right or even the convenience
| of Others, in the exercise Of it. Perhaps
such an obligation would be implied from
/ the nature of the grant-whieh is of a
right to land at public landing belonging
| to a commercial city. But here its exercise
so far as the place is involved, is expressly
made subject to the requirements of pub
lie convenience.
Who, in such case, is to determine what
public convenience requires? Clearly
the party whose convenience is to control,
that is the public, Universal exper-
fence, say the Supreme Court shows
that this can best be left to the determine
ton Of the municipal authorities, who are
supposed 10 be best acquainted with the
wants and necessities of the citizens gen
orally Moses ct al VS.. the p. f. ". d
| c. Il. II, Co. q III. 522-3 The complain
ants are private citizens merely, and the
right the exercise of which is in question,
is their private right Upon such a ques-
/ ton therefore they cannot represent any
other than their private interests; and
these, by the very supposition Of question
between them, stand opposed 10 the con
venience Of the public. The Municipal au-
thorities are the public for this purpose
they stand in the place of the citizens
generally with authority to speak and act
for them, nor can the plblie speak or act
otherwise. The case, then, stands thus :;
COmplainants claim the right to land at
Washington street. They have the right
10 land at any point or points as public
convenience may require The public say
their convenience requires that the land
ing place should be at Eagle street And
the public convenience by the terms of the
I Act, must control
But it is said that if the City has the
power, it is police power. and therefore
can be exercised only for the safety or
! convenience of the publc-that the Bill
AYERS that the requirement to land at
Eagle st. is not in the interest of the pub
4 lie because that point is incOnvenient and
/ dangerous as landing, by reason Of the
/ facts in that behalf set forth and that
I the truth Of these averments is admitted
/ by the demurrer.
! 1t is a sufficient answer to this to say
first, that the Bill does not in fact alege
that the use of the Eagle St landing as
required would be dangerous or inconyen.
lent to NE pe,blic 1t alleges that It would
be more dangerous and less convenient q.
/ q ferry laEdiHg than that at Washington
4 St 10 tie Compartments and 70 those per
sons jrL0 mag hare Occasion 10 3tse the FER
~ and as descriptive of the latter USE
the term public which is a misappG
cation of it The averment may be tru,
and yet the Eagle St landing be the NOR
safe and convenient, on tie irhOJe, even t.
, those who have occasion to use the ferry
and certainly it may be 10 the pubhc, il
Guiding those who may not have occasion
to use it. And, Second, If the Bill did ;
|, allege, the complainants cannot in a cas-
ike this be heard to speak for the publ
as against the public authorities, for tn
reasons above stated. They can set u
only their own individual rights.
Again it is said that by the terms of tn
resolution the removal was not to tax
, place until the landing at Eagle stree
should be suitably improyed-and that
, has not been suitably improved The par
, tcular defect IN the Improvement Is ne
+ stated The resolution was adopted Au
, gust ,, 1870 and notice was given for re
r mOval by the 9th of Sept 1872, more tina
: two years thereafter. The presumptio
: must be that the improvement had by tina
: time been made. at least in the opinion Z
the Council, and it was for them to deter
q mine that question.
2 Finally, compliments insist that th
| power of the Council, if il exists, can b
p exercised only according to the Amende
d Charter, and that Is by ordinance impo;
. ing penaltieS-that the resllution'set out
4 the Bill is not an ordinance. not havin
n been approved by the Mayor, nor put
Y llshed, nor prescribing any penalty for il
violation and therefore incapable of eI
b. forcement
d The Charter Art. ", "a, p. q in tern
: empowers the regulation by the City
n the use Of the landing, by ord
nance, or through the Harb,
. Master or other authorized %
e Ger. The resolution directs the Harb
, Master therein styled Wharf Master
cause the ferry company to land thit
r. ferry boat at Eagle street, and the con
Elainants, the ferry company have had fl
,t notice Of the adoption by the Council
IF the said resolution, aud reasonable tin
T. upon request for compliance with it.
IL does not appear by the Bill that the CT
'y threatens in case Of Noncompliance
# through the Harbor Master or otherwis
n. to make any arrest or collect any fine or
d destroy or injure any property or right
d the compliments, but merely. and in ca
az the c0mplalnants themselves neglect
e refuse after such notice and request
40 the use of only SO much force as may be n
is cessary, to cause the removal of the Ian
~ ing dock and boat from Washington sire
T. to Eagle street. And whether the city C;
e. proceed only by ordinance or whether
Al legal effect the resolution is an ordinanc
10 or can be legally enforced in the mann
pr prop0sed-are questions which seem to L
AT immaterial to decide The complainant
20 must afhrmatively show a right in thel
es selves to hold the landing at Washiugt
r. street If they have no such right
nj against the will of the City, then, aft
y notice Of the City's will, and although it
ID threatened to be enforced irregularly,
Sc the view of Court of Equity they are rat
ID er in the attitude Of trespassers up
in premises of which the city is in right
N possession, and cannot, while in that at
m tude, invoke the aid of such Court
N maintain it even against the threatened
ne of unlawful force to dispossess them.
Ii The demurrer is sustained, the Injur
m ton heretofore issued herein dissolved Al
at the Bill dismissed at the cost Of complai
H. ants.
= Barrett at the Burtis Opera House
Mt The undetermined Lawrence Barrett h
~ slim house last night, the greater port
er from this side but if any of his audien
r think they saw big thing they are mu
r mistaken. Barrett is simply hum-dru
monotonous elocutionist, who wholly IN