Grand Rapids morning telegram., 1885-08-14
SUPERVISORS DIFFER.
TttE CoUN ' COURT HOUSE SIZE
Tao Out OF Three CITY Supervisors Tn
tersie~eo Thtak the Count,
Should Have the Para.

A representative Of IHs TElE0GAN eailed
uTOu Supervisor SoherneriOrn, of the
Seventh hard, yesterday and asked his opin-
ION Of the action of the Council IA eArrs ing
the Fulton street Park ease 10 the Supreme
Cou1 tie said; II have read the decision
of the Council and the opinion of Cits AttOr
ney Ransom on the case. bat have not
given II any special thought. | was si one
time ia favor OF locating the Court House
there, bat ain not - much III favor OF IL
nov, although It may be located there, ~ IA
matter of economy, or Ne may choose site
elsewhere and let that one 20. Ny present
choice would be ia the vicinity Of the
Government building and City Hall.
would not object Ia locating lt where the Old
building now stand-, a. the lot now owned
boy the county II one hundred feet square
and additional property 10 the north can &c
bought very reasonable. The county super
yisor- are IA favor of the park, but very few
of the city members are. We cannot do
anything IN the matter until we yet the de
cision of the Supreme Court
Supervisor LOOMS, of the Second Ward,
was next seen and expressed his opinion a.
follows: IF the decision of Judge Parrish,
affirming the title of the county TO
the park, be sustained by the
Supreme Court. then the citizens viii be
confronted with the question IN about tins
shape-the title TO the property ~ ia the
county. for the purposes of IA Court House
and for no other the county IL debarred from
selling II 10 the city for park, or 10 any
one for any purpose. IL the county builds
"A Court House elsewhere, then the title u the
south half reverts 10 private parties, the Til
eston heirs, et al. and tho north half 10 the
city, by virtue of quit claim from Louis
Campau To the city. To erect Court House
will require an appropriation. to be voted on
by the citizens of the entire county. A
proposition to build elsewhese would proba-
ably be voted down 10y voters outside
of the city and would also be opposed by
many in the city, for the reason that TO
locate or build elsewhere would be To re-
linquish all title To the Park site. So that
practically the question will be 10 erect, IN the
near future Court House on the Park, or
no Court House at all.
SUPERVISE Benjamain, of the Third Ward,
said: IL have read the decision of the
Superior Court Judge and think IL is all
right. When | was IN the City Council
advocated having the City Hall and County
Court buildings under one roof, IN the Park,
but "a another site has been chosen for the
City Hall think the county building should
toe erected on the Park. 1t will cost pro-
badly 900 To buy another site and then
we will have to give up the claim 10 the Park
altogether. The residents of the city have
To pay fifty-four per cent. of the entire
county taxes, and think they will not wish
to buy another site. when they can have this
one gratis. If ii IL decided that the county
has title 10 that lot, / shall be IN favor of
submitting the proposition TO the people nj
the coming spring election IF taxing the
county for the building of 81 Court House.