Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1883-12-11
For the SPECTATOR
0hsrucfiOns I'm Streets.

Several weeks ago, we petitioned the Com
mon Council of Staunton to adopt proper
measures for preventing the necessary obstruc-
ton of our narrow streets. The movement
was prompted by no spirit Of unkindness to a
| single Individual; but the evil complained Of
has become almost unbearable. Sidewalks
were encountered by boxes, barrels. chicken
coops, watermelans bales of hay, coils of barbed
wire, &C. At one point pile OF bricks re-
manned for weeks near the curb-stones, ana
next the wall was wheelbarrow with JUST
space between for one person to pass. ana
this was on one of the most frequented streets
In fact it had gradually become the haolt OF
merchants, and especially of grocery men, To
expose a considerable part of their stock IN
trade on the Streets How they expected Gus
toners to get to the doors of their stores was a
question.
Every individual to whom the petition was
presented expressed hearty approval of It's
general object. 1t was shown to several mer-
chants who had been conspicuous for obstruct-
ing the pavements with their goods and wares
in order that they might be informed Of the
movement, and oppose it if they wished. They
were mt asked, nor indeed expected, to cen
cur; but every one of them signed the paper
Several of them remarked, that they put their
merchandise on the streets only because others
did it, and If it were generally prohibited they
would be satisfied.
The petition went before the Council. and the
proper committee was ordered to prepare an
ordinance.
At the last meeting of Council, the ordinance
was reported, and vigorously opposed and de-
feated. The ground of objection was, we I'M
derstand, that to require merchants to keep
their stock inside their store-rooms would in
jure the business of the town. That is, the bu-
siness of the town is to be promoted by allow
ing the streets to be at times literally impassa-
BILE!
A substitute, offered by Mr.. Todd, allows
merchants to use one-fourth of side walks not
less than seven feet wide, for displaying their
boxes, &C., and it was adopted by the follow
ing vote:
Ayes.-Messrs Burns, Berk eley, Todd, Crowle,
Marquis, and WITT.
Ndus-Messrs. Cochran, Gooch, and Trout.
Thus our City Council has undertaken to
ALLEVIATE from public uses one-fourth of every
seven foot pavement. By what authority was
this done?
A case in point was decided by the Supreme
Court of Appeals, at Richmond. December IL.
1877, viz: Norfolk City VS.. Chamberlain 39th
Grattan, page 534 The main points decided
were 1--WE quote from the book):
81. Streets in q city or town, though generally
subjected to the supervision and control of the
municipality, are public highways. the use
whereof is for the public at large.
49, The common and select councils or N.
had no authority to grant permission to G. to
occupy any portion of the public highway"
This is the law of the land. which no Town
Council is at liberty to disregard. The seven
foot pavements of Staunton are narrow enough
for the purpose to which they have been dedi-
Gated, and we claim every foot of it for the use
of the men, women, and children of the COM
munity, and of other people who come here.
The action of the Council. in defiance of law,
is liable to be reviewed by the Courts, and the
people will bear the matter in mind at the
polls. MANY CITIZENS