The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-02-01

1880, laid off what is now known as the
original Town of Ottawa, embracing
block II. upon the west half Of which the
| county courthouse now stands. when
plat was never filed for record in this
county subsequently thereto the Gencr-
al Assembly, on the 18th day OF February,
\. -. 1881, passed an act authorizing ana
empowering the Canal Commissioners To
make donations of lots. not exceeding
ten acres in amount in towns on the line
of said canal which had been or might
| become seats of Justice. to aid III the cree
tion Of public buildings.
Under this law the Canal CommlSSlon-
erS donated to the county OF La Sale lots
| including block II . amounting to about
10 acres of land, all Of which was disposed
of by the county except the west half OF
block II, upon which the courthouse now
| stands.
BY the same act of the General Assem-
| bly, it WAS provided that the public build
! ingS at Ottawa should be erected on the
! public square laid off at Ottawa on the
north side of the Illinois river.
If, then, we can ascertain where this
public square is we shall have but little
! trouble in determining where, 10y this
| law, the public buildings of this county
| were To be erected.
AS | have before stated the original
plat OF the town Of Ottawa. as laid OH by
the Canal Commissioners, was never re-
corded in the county. Neither does 1t
appear that any copy of it was ever re-
corded in this county. But we do find
on record enough, | think, to establish
beyond controversy that block IL. was
dedicated to the public use by the Canal
Commissioners us public Sqaare.
My reasons for coming to this c0nclu-
90 DO,
missioners filed in the Recorders office
a plat of the original town OF Ottawa, by
which they We're governed in the sale of
lots previously laid out, upon which plat
block eleven is laid out us public
square.
1t also appears by an adjudication and
determination by the County Commits
sioners' Court OF said La Sale county, in
1899. that the present site OF the court
house was on the public square. rs laid
off by the Canal Commissioners, or, at
least, upon the west half of said square,
the east half thereof having been pre-
viously sold by the County Commission
ers' Court, which sale was legalized by an
act of the General Assembly, approved
Feb. 23d, 1871.
By the second section OF said act twas
provided that so much Of block eleven
the same, shall be and remain a public
square"
Here we have, then, not only dedlca-
ton by the Canal Commissioners of block
eleven to the public use, but positive
act of the General Assembly that that
portion Of on which the courthouse now
stands shall be and remain public
square.
Had the Legislature passed no act on
the subject the dedication, by the Canal
Commissioners, of this block to the pub
lie use would, of itself, preclude the Coun-
ty Board from selling and dlsposing of
this property, and certainly when the
state which made the donation has de-
clared, by an act of the General Assem-
bly,, the purpose for which this property
shall be used, namely, public square,
the County Board cannot, III the absence
of legislation authorizing them so to do,
sell and dispose of this property.
This, then, leads us to the inquiry: has
the Legislature by any subsequent enact
ment vested the County Board with the
power and authority to sell and dispose
of this property?
Upon careful examination of the
statutes comforting and defining the pow
ers and duties of County Boards | find
no authority given to sell ANA dispose of
the property in question. The act of
Feb. 23d, 1911. has never been repealed
by any express statute, neither is there
anything in the constitution or subse-
quent legislation by which said act can
be said tHhave been repealed by implica-
ton. am. therefore, clearly of the opin-
ion that there is no authority or power in
the County Board to sell and dispose of
the property in question. AS to how far
the Legislature has the power to confer
upon County Boards, by general law, au-
thOrity to dispose of lands dedicated to
the public use, is a more difficult queS-
ton, and must to a great extent depend
upon the nature and extent of the dedi-
cation. And when from all the circum-
stances of the case it appears that the
property was dedicated TO Il particular
public use as a public square, and private
rights have thereby become involved, it
is question of extreme doubt as to the
power of the Legislature to authorize a
sale of such property.
Upon the question of the power of the
County Board to change the present site
of the county courthouse, | am of the
opinion that it cannot be done without
further legislation upon that subject.
The act of the General Assembly of 1881
positively directs the public buildings to
be placed upon the public square above
referred to.
This act has never been repealed, and
is still in force, and inasmuch as there is
nothing in the constitution or the subse-
duent legislation of the state by which
said act can be SAID to have been repealed
by implication, the County Board is bound
by it.
Respectfully submitted.
II. MAYO, COuHty attorney.
supervisor Barton introduced the tol-
lowing resolution, which, on motion, WAS
adopted:
itcSolred, That all moneys appropriated
for deputies and clerk hire for the vari-
Gus county offices of this county, be paid
and allowed only on sworn atlidavilS of
the persons performing said labor, andall
moneys not SO accounted for to be re-
turned to the County Treasurer.
Supervisor Wiley introduced the fol-
lowing resolution WHEREAS, there has
been much dissatisfaction expressed in
regard To the manner in which the super
intendency of the County Asylum has
been conducted by this Board, therefore
ReSoired, That this Board proceed to
the appointment of Superintendent of