Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-02
TN SEVERAL COLORS.
The New Street Bills Varying Hues
Like the Chameleons.
ONE-MANPOWERINSECTION THREE
How City Attorney MoreIand and Others
Try to Explain 1t.
A RULING BY JUDGE STOWE Is CITED

Representative Lafferty's. House bill, No.
21, seems to be chameleon hued, and the
paternity of section 8 as hard for some
people to ascertain as was the authorship of
the letters of Junius, though City Attorney
Moreland does hold himself out as willing
to father it.
It is claimed by some that there is no
necessity for Mr.. Laferty's bill, and as
some Of its friends claimed that it was
gotten up to remedy state of affairs dis
closed by Supreme Court decisions-that
cost of making streets could not be assessed
by foot frontage, answer was made that the
bill approved June IA, 1887, provided a
remedy. It is said the framer of the act of
1887, F. A. Magee, Esq, after seeing it in
print, did not find it very good. and in this
view City Controller Morrow, Clerk Shep-
pard and City Attorney Moreland concur.
Mr.. Sheppard pointed out section II as
the specially Objectionable one: "The dam
ages, costs and expenses of grading, paving
or macadamizing streets or alleys shall be
assessed by the viewers and collected in the
following manner:
The viewers shall make just and equitable
appraisement of all damages, taking into con-
sideration in the appraisement the advantages
and benefits, as well as disadvantages which
every owner or owners shall or may be likely to
sustain by reason of the improvement, and
after ascertaining the whole amount of the
damages they shall assess the same equltably,
Justly and without partiality upon the proper
ties which may be or will likely be benefited by
the improvements.
TWO WAYS OF VIEWING IT.
This is claimed to be void for uncertainty.
City Engineer Bigelow said: "The bill
is good one, with the exception of section 3,
which provides that one person can ask for
the opening of street, and if Councils fail
to pass the ordinance within six months the
street is then declared vacated. The act
will entirely disarrange street legislation
during many years past. Here is the Sec
ton:
1t shall be lawful for any owner of prop
erty upon or over which any street, lane or al
ley may be in whole or in part located, but not
opened, at any time thereafter to petition said
Councils for tie opening of the same or any
upon the failure Of said Councils to adopt an
ordinance for the opening of the same for the
period of six months thereafter, the same shall
be vacated and annulled so far as the same af
fects the property of the petitioner, and it
shall be the duty of the City Clerk, upon de-
mand of any person interested therein, to GER
tify said failure of action on the part of Coun-
ellis to the Chief of the Department of Public
Works. who shall note the same on the plan on
file in his office.
Controller Morrow said the act was drawn
to meet objections raised by Judge Stowe in
a case tried in court few weeks ago.
THE CAUSE FOR IT.
Mr.. Moreland stated that Judge Stoves
ruling in the case ofMcCombs versus the city
of Pittsburg, about five weeks ago, was the
cause of the framing Of Mr.. Lafferty's bill.
The plaintiff had added two rooms to his
house and they were on the line of the
street. 81 held" said Mr.. Moreland, "that
he was bound to take notice of the line, but
Judge Stowe said it would be hardship to
allow man to be deprived for 25 years of
the use of his ground and then punish him
for overstepping the boundary. 1 then con-
cluded that we needed an act that would
prevent such trouble in the future"
Objection is also made that the Board of
Viewers is reduced to cipher by section 8,
of Mr.. Lafferty's bill. e
In answer to query whether streets had
not been improved under the act of 1887,
without any disagreeable consequences re-
sulting, Mr.. Sheppard and the Controller
admitted that such was the case, but Mr..
Sheppard stated that Oakland avenue and
Winebiddle street were not to be taken as
a criterion, as there was no serious opposi-
tion to their improvement. He also re-
marked that under our present law heavy
land holder might prevent necessary i'm
proyement