Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1876-01-21
Chatham Street Improvement.

Ed. BULLETIN:-A few weeks ago my
attention was called to an editorial pub
lished by you, IN regard to my property
on Chatham street, wherein your remarks
have a tendency, in my opinion. to create
views in the minds of the Aldermen as
well as the public, lat is doing me an IN
justice. Now, protest against your right
to express such views ia your paper, for
the reason, that l consider, have rights
which the city authorities are bound by
the law to respect. While objecting to
the injustice done me by the editorial al
luded to, | wish to state that am In favor
of deciding to the city the six feet wanted,
if the city will procure for me Q feet on
the west side of my lot. Ihave consulted
with several intelligent men here lately,
and they all expressed the opinion that the
offer / now make is a very reasonable one,
for the reason that the six feet | propose
to give the city is of far more value than
the nine feet ! offer to take. In cOnclus-
ion wish to state, that | will not silently
consent to the dividing of my lot, unless
my demand is complied with, for the rea
son that the ten feet left me, after such
division, would be OF no value to me Tor
building use &. IEKEL.
independence, Jan. IS, 1876.
REMARKs.-Mr Iekel, in the above COM
munication, charges that in discussing the
question of Strengthening the west side of
Chatham Street. the BULLETIN has done
him injustice. and says further that we
had no right to express the views we did.
He does not intimate that we stated what
was untrue, or in any way created wrong
impressions, but that the effect of our ar
guments in favor of that needed improve
ment, "creatcd views in the minds of the
Aldermen and of the public" which may
lead them in the exercise of their duty to
the public to do something detrimental to
the individual interests Of Mr. Iekel. If
the matter in question was private trans
action between man and man, Mr.. lekel
might properly complain of interference
by the press as impertinent, but as this is
Il matter in which the pnblc as well as
Mr. Ickel is concerned, in which public
lnlclcSlS anu convenience anu lnc uHllOT-
nifty and symmetry of one of our princi-
pal streets come into consideration-we
could not if we would. properly, decline
to ventilate it through our columns. Mr..
Iekel says he has rights that the city au
thorities are bound to respect. That is
true, and we are confident that his rights
will not be invaded. He should know.
however, that they are held subordinate
to the public interest and convenience. :.
We are still of the opinion that to permit
the present favorable opportunity for
making the needed improvement on
Chatham Street to pass, through consider
ations of nlggardly economy, would be IL
short sighted policy, and that we should re
greet it long after i was too late. Its ac-
need not necessarily inter-
fere with the rights and interests of any
body An amcablc and mutual arrange
ment might be made with Mr.. lekel, in
which the rights of both parties could be
secured, but if this is not possible, then it
should be done in the manner prescribed
by law. The matter is OF too much i'm
portance to be abandoned