Morning journal and courier., 1889-08-09
THE INJUNCTION SMASHED.

The Final EHors OF the State House /
Preservers, Headed BY Ben Noyes, |
Does Not Hold Water ana Contractor /
Montgomery Will Renew work Te- |
Day.
The injunction which B. Noyes and few
other friends of the partially demolished old
State House thrust forward on Tuesday as q
sort of forlorn hope was completely smashed
yesterday morning by Judge Carpenter, who
granted 1t. As soon as the judge heard the
arguments of Ex-Governor Ingersoll and At
torney watrous, who appeared for the city,
he Immediately dissolved the injunction.
The hearing began at 10 o'clock in the Su-
perior court room. Lyman E. Aunson ap"
peared for the continuance of the injunction,
and Ex-Governor Ingersoll and Acting Cor
poration Counsel George D. Watrous for its
dissolution. Mr.. B. Noyes sat at the attor-
neys' table an interested obsel yer of the pro-
oeedings. Only few spectators were present.
Mr.. Watrous in the opening argument said
the court of common council has the right
to control the finances and property of the
cresionary right to demolish any building
that is useless burden on the city; that
$65, 900 at least were necessary to repair and
refurnish the structure and the court of
common council determined upon the demol-
ition of the building. The power to do this
is the vested right of that body. The vote
of the people wasn't mandatory but simply
suggestive to the council. Outside of a verv
few persons there is now no public SEN
timent that demands its retention. This PEI
tition is about the same as the first one. The
county is not party to this action, although
it was in the other one And yet the county
made no objection to the state house destruc-
4 - ~ IL E. 80 oks@ mI,A-
ers say that Mayor Peck was elected because
| he was state house advocate; and yet he
has aligned the order for removing the build
ing. All that is new in this paper is this
! allusion to Mayor Peck.
Ex-Juge Munson said that very few nem-
bers of the Court of Common Council are
taxpayers, the aggregated value of their tax
able property being only $142, 900; that they
had no right, either by charter or otherwise,
to order the destruction of any city building,
and even if such right were conceded to
them they couldn't touch the State House,
for this is a State and county building. It
doesn't belong to the city at all. In 1928 the
State contributed 10000 toward the erec-
ton of the structure and the county $40, 900.
Not one cent was contributed by the city,
but he admitted that the city gave the land
on which the building stands, that, if the
State and county had coded their title in the
building to the city, there must have been a
Il Qe6Q, anu LQat Qo6u mu5G Do Oh T6cOIQ, pub
| the town clerks books fail to reveal any such
J document. At this remark Ex-Governor
: Ingersoll smiled and asked: "Did the county
delegate B. Noyes to defend its rightsi
) Hasn't the county appointed authorities to
defend its rights and priviegese"
The ex-judge could not answer this and ex-
| Governor lngersoll arose. In few well put
! words he argued that the injunction. was
founded on an absurdity, that 1t ia the vested
| right of the Court of Common Council to de-
molish any building. public or private, that
| is needless expense to the city; that it was
discretionary with that body to determine
whether or not any building should be de-
} molshed, and no other body or citizen could
: legally interfere. The judiciary department
J had so confirmed this right in variety of
cases, and Judge Fem had 30 decreed in his
dissolution of the former injunction.
Judge Carpenter quickly exclaimed after
he had listened to the ex-governor that he
shouldn't have signed the injunction had he
known the true facts of the case. "But," he
added, "Tm alone to blame and assume the
responsibility. No court can control the city
as long as the city is doing that which 1t be-
lieves to be fair and just. There must be
fraud or some such element involved to have
the court interfere. / can't say now from the
new light have gained since signed the in
| junction, it Is not the best disposition of the
State House to demolish it. I don't think we
| ought to interfere in this matter. Indeed,
Pm not 30 certain but what the court of
| common council in its action on this question
Is in the line of carrying out the will of the
people. 1 have no hesitancy in saying that
the injunction should be dissolved, and at
l onoa