The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1882-11-10
That Six Feet.
NEWTON: Oct. 80, 1882.

NEWTON; Oct. 80, 1882.
ED GAzErrE.-I notice in your
issue of the 9th an article stating
that there is considerable contro-
versy going on about an excess OF six
feet of ground in the block on main |
street, between Max Friendly's and
Rosenthall's corners. This article
referred to is written as though the
excess was just discovered and
brought to light; but it has been
known to several for some time; and
any one can learn just how much
land he or she is entitled to by refer.
ing to the plott of the city made and
recorded in 1876. In explanation l
will say, that in 1875 I made re-
survey of the city of Corvallis, and
found that the description OF the
length of lines between the original
claim corners fall short of the old
corners in the neighborhood of %
feet, for this particular tract or claim,
other additions have their particular
excesses too. There is none OF the
blocks or lots that fall short of the
| required size throughout the city.
The streets are all full width, and
as In many places to have cut each
block down to its exact size would
have occasioned great trouble in
moving buildings and other improve
men.s. and would have left narrow
strips ofland running back from the
river through the town unclaimed
and unowned, as<he original owners
had decided away their. rights in
blocks and lots, supposed to be of
certain size, but upon investigation
they were found in reality to be lar
ger than WAS intended by the orig
inators OF the town plott, or else
there, was ground unaccounted for
; the matter was brought before thu
city council, under whose 1nstruc-
tions and authority / was making tn
survey, and after considering it to it
fullest exteas it was advised that tn
. survey should be made to conform
. as nearly as possible to the improve
: ments on main street, they being of
: more substantial character than else
where in the city, and that this stree
: should be made base to work fror
and that each tier of blocks runnin
}. back from the river should be in uni
J iormity with the front on the afore
said base, then the excess of eac
block, where such existed, was to
! divided up equally between lots, gi
= ing in shis particular instance refere
$ to OF Gpot additional width to eac
= lot d !lous s.lout the tier of blocks
e the back portion of the city. Th
is can be seen by property holders I
'e referring to the plots made by m
's and on record in the city office al
in the county clerks office. No o
o individual had purchased or acquir
< thi. extra amount of land, hence
'e was considered as acting with not
81 ing but fairness to all persons int
es ested to adjust the matter in Il
: way, as the said parties would at
as time and even now deem it great
'o Justice to be forced to move their
er provements on to the so feet allow
~ by the original plat. As it is, no Q
r is the looser of one inch, while seve
e'r have gained something to their adv
ne tape if size of lots are taken into
s count, and the man that does
ne wsnt his extra foot can give, sell
}" convey it to his neighbor. get rid
,re IRE it in any way SO as to keep pc
oe in tho family, and no one should
ne because the boy in the next seat
Is the "bigest red apple'' as all have
n apples out of th.. same sack.
'ur Respectfully yours.
ar, WILL r. WEBBEI