, 1880-05-09

| out, the triumph of the anti-third-termer
| will be complete, and the Second Congress
'sional District will be truly and fairly repre-
sented in Chicago. Any action less thai
this will be base surrender to the worst ele
ments of the Republican and Democrat.
parties-united to foist bad cause on al
unwilling people.
THE VETOED RAILROAD ORDINANCE.
| On Monday evening the Mayor vetoed tht
second ordinance granting the right of wa,
to the Western Indiana Railway Company tt
| enter the city and occupy the streets ant
alleys in the area between Fourteenth ant
| Harrison streets and Third and Fourth ay
enues. The Council faileqbto pass the ordi
nance over the veto.
The TRIBUNE has urged in this case, as II
all similar cases, the adoption Of the most lib
eral policy towards the railroads, especial.
| in the nlatter Of entrance to the city. Against
the policy Of their exclusion this paper
has always strongly protested, consider
ing that every addition to the railroad
facilities of the city was Of great public
benefit whose effects extended to every par
of the city, and to all classes of business, and
to all industrial occupations. THE TRIBUNE
has, however, insisted that these franchises
were also Of great pecuniary value to the
corporations seeking them, and that the city
should stipu1ate as all absolute condition
that the grant of the franchise should in
every case protect the city from all liability,
present or remote, because of the surrender
OF these streets and alleys, and should also
stfpulate that the grantees should compensate
directly all private citizens for loss or dam
age resulting from the taking or destruction
Of their property.
The veto message of the Mayor ununes-
tionably shows that in the preparation of this
ordinance there has been considerable
omission of the legal protection which is due
to the city and to private citizens, and that 1t
would seem that this omission has been i'll
territorial, the purpose being to obtain the
grant and leave the city and private owners
of the property to suffer the consequences of
such omission, without remedy.
The present situation Of the case Is embar-
rassed By two previous acts of the City C0un-
Gil. The city by ordinance some years ago
provided for opening South Dearborn street,
and the proceedings were carried on to the
point Of confirmation, the land being con-
de1nned, and udgment given in favor OF prop
erty-owners for the land taken, and against
other property-owners for benefits resulting
from the opening. Some persons paid their
tax for benefit, and others were paid for their
property. Then, after several years. delay,
the Council hastily repealed the original Or
dinance. In the meantime, it has been u1l-
certain whether Dearborn street was op ened
or not. One person has got Judgment
against the city for his land taken for
the opening, and if this Judgment be
sustained the city will be RESPONSE
BILE in million of dollars for damages. The
present ordinance covers over half mile Of
the distance embraced in the Dearborn street
opening, and ignores the existence Of Dear
born street altogether. Another embarrass-
nlent is, that last fall the Council passed an
ordinance granting to this Railway Company
franchise extending its right Of way to
Van Buren, street. That ordinance was
passed over the Mayors veto, but the Appel
late Court declared it void. This decision
may be carried to the Supreme Court and re-
versed. In that event, had this second Or
dinance passed, the Company would have
had, as the Mayor shows, two i1lde-
pendent grants, wholly consistent with
one another, and practically giving the
Company unlimited license over 100 acres
Of land in the very heart OF the
city, without the least protection to the city
or to private owners against any liability for
damages or injuries. The omission to repeal
the first ordinance before granting the sec
ond, and the omission TO protect the city and
private owners from losses and liabilities,
were, we think, properly treated by the
Mayor as fatal objections to the ordinance,
and he did right in vetoing it.
The Mayor points out several defects in
the legal composition Of the ordinance, and
insists that the Company should
submit its demands to the scrutiny Of the
legal authorities Of the city and be made. sat
isfactory to them.
Another objection by the Mayor is, that, |
while it is held out that the Grand Trunk |
and several other substantial and response |
bic companies are seeking this franchise, no
one Of them is willing to appear in the mat |
Ter or assume any responsibility; that the |
Western Indiana Company is an unsubstan-
.1al affair, owning only twenty miles Of COM
pleted railway, and that the other companies
really intend to be. tenants to an ire
'ponsible principal Il the trunk rail- |
ways in whose behalf the city is asked to !
grant this franchise are unwilling to become |
'esponsible to the city and to private persons
1nder the terms Of a proper ordinance pro-
Getting and saving public and private rights,
lien 1t Is all the more important that what
'ver contract may be made shall make the
privileges granted conditional upon the use
# any OF them by any company whatever.
The Mayor points out the indeinitness Of
be ordinace, and insists that it should be
'lain and direct in its grants and in its re-
Luirements.
Many will agree with the Mayor that the
light of way should not extend north of
'Welfth street until such time as the city
hall provided for Strengthening the river from
twelfth street to Sixteenth street. This i'm
royement, he points cut, will enable all the
abroad tracks to be; moved west of Clark
treet, and then the right OF way
light be extended over the new terri
,ry, north not only. to Harrison street,
Mt even to Van Ruren street oivino |