Morning journal and courier., 1884-10-18
COMMITTEE ON SQUARES.

The Extension of North Church Fur. ther Consfdered-Argume Pro and COn--The Committee Decide to Rec- ommend That the Petition Be Not Granted.
 The Committee on Squares held meeting | in rooms 10 and il City Hall last evening I Alderman Platt presiding. The principal 1 purpose of the meeting was to further con
 sider the petitiorof the United society fo1
 permission to extend their church edifce or | the public Green. The clerk read the peti tion and the remonstrance thereto. The petitioners were first heard.
 Mir. Walter B. Law, for the petitioners
 said that notwithstanding the statement made in the papers there was no intention on the part of the United society to extend their church edifce any farther back than the line of Trinity church now being enlarged, and it was not proposed to make the addition as wide as the church proper. If it was illegal, as stated, then the addition to Trinity church was il- legal. He said the United church did not desire to establish any new precedent, for the precedent had already been adopted by the Court of Common Council in its grant to Trinity church. MT. Law thought the ob- iection that Trinity was to use it's addition for a chancel and that the United society was to use its addition for some other purpose was simply absurd. He said he did not know of a person that had bought property on Elm street with the idea that there should not be any encroachments. After reading abstracts from the daily papers MT. Law said that the petitions or remonstrances amounted to but little; but as a grant had already been made to Trinity church and no opposition ms Q n avtp l,o son, in fair play, why the petition of the United society should not be granted.
 s. H. Barnum advocated the granting of the petition He said that the extension of any church edifice should not be hindered in any way. ..
 Ex-Councilman Warner said he was sur prised to find anyone so much opposed to church extension. He said he could not but believe that this committee and the Court of Common Council would grant this peti- tion.
 Charles L. Ullman said that while in the Common Council last year he opposed the extension of Trinity church He thought if the sentiment of the community was taken to-day that not one-tenth would favor any farther encroachment on the Green. The Green had an equal recognition with all other public squares or parks in the country and he did not believe the same sentiment existed to-day that did two hundred and if ty years ago. The extension of Trinity church was granted purely for church pur- poses and no farther eneroachments on the public domain should be allowed. It was wrong originally, and it was wrong this time. Because 8 wrong had been made in the case of Trinity church, @ second wrong does not make it right. He thought the Roman Catholics or Israelites had just as much right to petition for land on the pub lie Green for church purposes as the churches 11ny hot ho1 FNA Zoe Fo, extension.
 Eli w. Blake said that he did not know that he could add anything to what he had said at Q future hearing. He thought private interests should be protected He thought the North church had done a noble work dur ing it's existence and he was sorry to learn that after becoming wealthy society that it's religious education was at end unless it could have another part of the public Green for church purposes. MT. Blake said that the Common Council had no legal right to grant this petition under the city charter. He said that the proposed extension was to be an entirely new building and was intended for church parlors, chapel, etc., and not for the enlargement of the church building proper, and therefore he ob- jected to the proposed addition. The line must be drawn somewhere. The matter of the addition to Trinity church we had noth- ing to do with at present, and the Common council snould neSlUaCe De1ofe granting Jhls petition.
 Lewis B. Brown objected to any farther innovations on the public domain of the city. He did not believe the Common Council had any right to grant any land for church pur- poses. If one church had a right to ask for public land for church purposes, then any other church had the same right.
 The committee voted to recommend that the petition be not granted. The question will now have to be settled in the Court of Common Council.