The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-01-25

DALLAS, Jan. A.-[Editor HnRALp.l-
In your yesterdays paper saw a para
graph complaining of defective side
walks, especially of one on Lamar and
Main streets, belonging to A. ]. Gouffe.
and one on Austin and Main, belonging
to ID. u III. Blum, and asking if the city
had sidewalk ordinance, why it was
not enforced, and if there was anv
remedy for such evilsP
As matter of public interest, I wish TO
answer your questions.
The sidewalk ordinance provides two
methods OF action to build or repair
Sidewalks, viz: Sections, which makes
u lnlsdemeanor, punishable by fine,
II any one fails or neglects to build or
repair q sidewalk after proper notice
Irom the city engineer; and section 3.
which provides that if any one fails or
neglects to build or repair sidewalk
after proper notice, then the same NAV
be done by the city and taxed up against
the property.
The section s, was passed by the citv
council at an early period when the
law ala not permit section s
dead letter, as proved by experience.
For instance, in the case of Mr.. Gonffe,
bed ridden invalid, who cannot be ar.
rested and fined, and l.. & Ii, Blum.
OF Galveston, who also cannot be ar
rested ana lined, and as is also the case
OF numerous lots in the city belonging
to ladies, children, corporations, 1one
residents, invalids, property in itiga.
ton and of unknown owners. none of
whom can be fined.
But section 3 is remedy for these
evils, and if any alderman will persuade
the city council to pass the following
resolution, l can promise better side
walks on the principal streets named,
viz:
Resolved, That the city engineer i'm
neulately notlfy all property-owners on
Main and Elm streets, from Jefferson IN
Sycamore street, to repair their side
walk at once, according to the citv
ordinance, and if any one fails or me-
giects so to do after ten days notice, he
shall proceed to have the necessary
work done under sections 3 and 6 of the
sidewalk ordinance.
Alter liking all the sidewalks thus on
Main and Elm streets from Jefferson To
Sycamore street, all tho cross streets
between these two streets and from
commerce to Pacific avenue can
be repaired in the same way.
Many years experience has demonstrs-
tea inc fact that no good and uniform
public work can he constructed by in
dlvldual and separate action, but that il
is cheaper and better for all concerned
10 haYe the work done at once and I'm
bulk by the corporation and taxed
against separate owners of property, as,
Tor instance, the bois dare payements
on Main and Elm streets. This fine
piece OF work would haye been a miser-
able failure and botch il every owner
had beeh allowed to choose his own
material and manner of construction.
In the same way it is cheaper and
petter Tor all concerned that the CITY
build and repair all sidewalks and tax il
up against the property benefited.
AGAIN: The gravel sidewalk is not a
success in wet weather, "on the contra
ry, quite the reverse" and is only sub
stltute for better and more extensive
sidewalks, which will be put down as
the city Increases in wealth.
And Mt this time of the year look ont
Tor mud" There is no law against IL !:
IL IS found in all cities in the world at
TINS season, and can not be altogether
avoided either on streets or on side
walks. Respectfully,
w. NJ. JOHNSON,
City Engineer,