Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-06-29
THE NEW COUNT HOUSE.

EDITORS CHRONICLE: Il have abstainet
from discussion of the proper site for on
new Court House because the question is il
the hands of the Commissioners, who hav,
acted under oath, and because the County
Court, or at least the justices composing the
court, acting under their oaths of office, Sc
lected the Mrs. johnson lot, and 1 thought
that they had done what was best and that
| the public ought to be satisfied with their
| selection. The lot selected is near the bust
ness part of the town and accessible to every
one who may have business at a Court
House. 1t is about four times as large as the
old lot, and lies in that part of the town
| where the business of the place is surely
moving and will continue to move, no mat
| ter where the Court House is built. 1t is the
handsomest lot to be found that is near the
business part of the town, and can be inn
proved without grading or without build
ing one or two stories to get on level with
the streets. Besides, the Commissioners have
paid on this lot s., 200, and the deeds to that
much of it are registered in the office of the
Register of the county. Win the Magistrates
throw away this four thousand two hundred
dollars? Can they affort to do it Is the
county so rich in money as to play with
and thus throw away this large amount
already expended by its orders? When
they do, the taxpayers will want to know
their authority for so doing. 1t may be said
that the court which made the present selec-
ton and authorized this money to be paid
was called term, and therefore they had no
authority to do what they did. 1 answer
that the Ue7y same Magistrates who made
that selection are to sit on the same question
next Monday, and are they so vascillating
and undecided in their purposes and opin-
ions that they cannot ratify that which,
under oath, they did ON a former day, but
little more than month ago? Or, in fact,
can they decline to ratify what has been
done? Who is to return the money expend-
ed already? There is such thing as maxi
ing a Magistrate responsible for a waste of
public money, and, if / am not mistaken,
should they, in this case, throw away this
large sum, they will be called ON to make it
good. The people do not want to waste the
public money, neither do they wish lot for
a Court House out of town nor in part of
the town which has been almost abandoned.
Forward, and never backwards, is their
motto, and he who does not agree with this
sentiment will have to get out of the way.
Individual convenience or preference can |
not be considered when the public interests
are at stake, and, while the court ought to
select a lot which will be most convenient to |
the public, it ought, if possible, to avoid in
juring any private citizizen. But this is |
hard to do. A location cannot be made |
which will suit everyone. Such a thing |
would be impossible. My advice would he, |
let well enough alone.
1t has been said that the johnson lot is |
subject to all the objections which We're |
made to the old site on account of noise, etc.
This is a great mistake. In the first place,
the lot is four times larger, or nearly so, and |
the Court House would be built in the cen
ter of the lot, 1 suppose, which would re-
move the court room much further from the
street; and then there would be no hauling
and moving of vehicles by it except those
which pass down Commerce street, which
would be few compared to those which pass
down Franklin street by the old site. A
reflection will show that this is
true.
1t seems to be conceded fact that, if the
present site should be rejected, DR.. Cobb's
beautiful grove will be the one chosen.
That, at least, seems to be the present opin-
ion, so far as am able to ascertain it. No
one can object to the natural beauty of that
lot, but if the objections urged to the Metho-
dist Church lot were good, they are better
when urged to this. When the Methodist
Church lot was chosen, the citizens of Clarlls-
Vile held a meeting and memorialized the
County Court, and in this memorial stated,
that the lot then selected was
too far from the business part of the town,
and to put the Court House there would be
little less injurious to the business of Clarks-
vile than the late disastrous fire. This re-
nonstrance caused the court to reject the lot
opposite the Methodist Church. Have any
new facts caused them to change their
minds so that they will disregard the bust
ness of GAINESVILLE? trust that the present
ute will be retained, for, in my opinion, it
S to the interest of the county and town,
md, besides, there are fewer objections TO be
urged against it than to any other lot that
IAN be named. TAXPAYER NO. 2.
!