The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1880-10-09

seouently the writer 81 tits act Of January
10 1881 must have had Block II in his
mind and no other place. My belief, there
fore. is as a question of fact and my opinion
AS a matter of law that the legislature has
fixed Block II rs the place tor the court
house. And that the act of January ID, 1881,
is not only unrepealed, but that It IS EN-
phatically declared to be IN force by the acto
March 2, 1915 | do not attach much i'm
portance to the act OF Feb. 80 1871, except az
indicative OF what was meant by the act of
1881. After the conveyance of the lots IN
Block / to the county, the Legislature had
no constitutional power to take them away
from the grantee and dedicate or grant them
To the public for the uses Of the whole pub
lie without compensation to the owners OF
the land. Ii amounts to no more than call
ing OF the west half OF the block by the same
name which the legislature had in 1881 APP
piled to the whole block. The calling it
public square by the Legislature if it was
really the private property of the county did
not have the effect of a legislative grant of
that which the grantor had sold and did not
own to the public at large as grantee. In
less the county itself has since it became the
grantee and owner dedicated or consented to
a dedication of the land, 1t still owns 1t. The
very fact that the county has erected its
cupicd them as intended 1t should do, is IN
consistent with the idea of a dedication OF
the land by the county to the whole people
Public squares and CoErt house sites are Of
ten used as meaning the same thing IN com.
mon parlance, but there is u vast difference
between parcel of land called public
square dedicated to the whole public upon
which q court house could not be lawfully
erected any more than could town hall, a
manufacturing establishment or Il private
dwelling and tract OF land called public
square simply because intended to be used
for a court house and Jail by county own
ing the land think it was IN tins latter
and more limited sense that the legislature
called land intended as site for county
buildings public square, and that the west
half of Block II would again become the
private property of the county, as it was
when first conveyed, if a court house and jail
should be lawfully erected elsewhere, and
that the enclosed portion of the west half of
the block as the east half and all the other
lots could be lawfully sold to individuals,
and used by them as the owners thereof.
| cannot however, express a certain opinion
to that effect without a more thorough under
standing as to all that may have been
done by the county as acts, II any, lndl-
eating an intention to dedicate its
land to the whole public for the use
OF all mankind. On the subject Of what
constitutes II public square 80 dedicated to
the public generally, that no huildIng can he
erected thereon, see The Village of Prince
Vile rs. Anton ct a., n Ills. 32j. Ii, in
point of fact the county has never dedicated
the enclosed portion of West half of block II
to the public generally, so that it would be
unlawful to erect any buildings therein, then
the county still owns it, to be used only as a
site for public buildings of the comfy till
the law of 1881 shall be repealed, and after
that, to sell it as its own to those who may
lawfully use it as their own. Whether the
county has thus given its land to the use of
the general public or still owns 1t, depends
upon the intent of the county as manifested
by its acts and conduct through its officers
and agents. | am not sufficiently advised as
to what the facts really are in this respect
My impression from what do know is that
the county, and not the general public, owns
the enclosed land where the court house now
stands. 1t must use it, however, IN the pres
ent state ofthe law, as and for a site for pub
lie buildings, because such is the law con.
scented to and acted upon by the county. 1t
may be possible, though | think very I'M
probable, that the county has made present
to the public generally of what remains of
its donation, reservlng merely the right 10
occupy the ground of the public for its pub
lie buildings. 1t is much more probable
that it has used Its own land TO erect thereon
its own buildings, and that persons IN the
Legislature and out of 1t have lnaccurately
called mere court house site public
square, considering the expressions as sy.
nonymous. Regretting that | have not had
time to give the subject that thorough and
careful examination which its importance
demands, my conclusions as at present adj
vised, are:
1st That as the law now stands the coart
house should he erected on the west half of
block II.
ID That if the law be repealed, and an
other site be lawfully selected, the present
site with Its buildings can be lawfully sold
and the proceeds used in erecting buildings
on the new site. Respectfully submitted
EDWIN S. LELAND.