Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-07-23
THAT VETO WAS LOST
Under the Majority of 80 to in
Select Council Chamber.
DIAMOND STREET TO BE wlDENED.
The Discussion Sifted Down to WarmcaStle
vs. Lambie.
OTHER IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCES UP


When President Ford called the specia
meeting of the Select branch to order, Mr.
Heating moved to postpone action upon the
Diamond street ordinance until $3.50 in or
der to finish lot of accumulated business
of the Council. The motion was carried
and at 3:45 the unfinished business had been
attended to, and the Mayors veto was read.
Chairman Ford then announced: "The
question is, Shall the ordinance pass not.
withstanding the objections ofthe Mayor u
Mr.. Warmcastle was the first to address
the Chair. He was sorry that his convic.
tiOns compelled him to differ in his opinion
with his good-hearted, honest friend, the
Mayor but if the latter's claims were cor
rect, then Councils had been either in grave
error or guilty of gross neglect. He was in
clined 10 think that Councils were right.
In the first place, he said, the Mayor stated
that he had personally noticed the travel on
Diamond street and thought it was adequate
to accommodate the traffic. If the Mayor
had really done so ne could not fail to notice
that much of the travel was driven from
Fifth avenue to Sixth and Seventh avenues,
showing that
FIFTH AVENUE WAS ovERCRowDED,
If a personal view of that thoroughfare did
not prove the statement itself The time
would soon come Mr.. Warmcastle thought,
! when not only Diamond street, but several
5 other narrow thoroughfa5es in the central
part of the city, would have to be widened.
Mr.. Warmcastle also objected to the Mayors
statement that there was no foundation for
the passage Of the ordinance as a public con-
venience; and as for the statement that two
thirds OF the total foot frontage of the street
was opposed to it, the Mayor was clearly
wrong. There were property holders repre-
senting 565 feet of the total 'front.'
age on the petition for the i'm
provement, while there had been only
los feet on the remonstrance. He also
denied that the estimated cost of making
the improvement, $3.50, 900, would be sad
died upon the city. The Board of Viewers
had reported that the property along Dia-
mond street would be sufficiently benefited
to pay that amount The Board of Viewers
had very liberal estimate of claims for
damages, basing their estimate upon the
claims made by the property owners them
selves, and this item of the expense had
amounted to S555, 900, which, the speaker
had no doubt, would be reduced to 500, 900
less when the assessment was properly
made and the benefits to the property were
considered in the summing up.
Mr.. Warmcastle questioned the possibility
of the city being mulcted for the payment
of the cost of the improvement. How could
it be when the damages must be assessed
and paid before the work was begun? If
the assessment failed tnen the plan would
simply 5e set aside and dropped. The pass
age of the ordinance oiG not settle the mat
ter as far as Councils were concerned, by
any means.
A MARKED DISTINCTION.
It was not the same as if, after the passage
of the ordinance, the work was placed in
the hands of a contractor. This was a work
the city would do herself, and it would be
in her twn hands all the time. The oniy
troub4 the city could possibly have with
the pbperty holders by making this i'm
proyfment would possibly be with one
pEoDerty, where a building was being
erected, and where the owner or the con-
tractor might come on the city because he
could not finish his building, but the
chances for this were very remote indeed.
1t would be impossible, said Mr.. Warm
castle, to char ge the improvement of
street to the public benefit, Tor all street i'm
provements were public benefits; but the
property along those streets was benefited
bv an increase in value to at least the cost
of the improvement. For these reasons, Mr.
Warmcastle said, he must, with the best of
feeling tor the Mayor, vote against his veto.
Mr.. Heating thought that Mr. Warm
castles argument was comprehensive
enough to convince anybody that the ordi-
nance was worthy one and should be
passed. Mr.. Keating's only objection to it
wa that 1t mao not included the widening
OF the square between Grant and Smithtield
streets.
Mr.. Lambie had voted against the or
dlnance before, and was opposed to it now.
He thought the Mayors objections were all
reasonable and founded on fact He re-
terred to the speech made in Common
Council by Mr.. Carnahan, in which the lat
ter said the street laws of Pittsburg would
not apply 10 the widening of Diamond
street, and the city had no law
to support it. Coming from such
source, Mr.. Lambie thought this
opinion was worthy of consideration. As
to the matter of widening the street, if the
Mavor was right, there is no necessity for
widening the street but the public benefit,
and in that case the public should pay for
It, If it was necessary to widen this street
IN order to ease up the travel on other streets
ct the city, the improvement would be pub
lie, and they should pay for it, and the city
could not assess the property on the street.
VIEWERS AND JURIEs.
As to the cost of the improvement, the
claims for damages, and the assessments
upon tie property, Mr.. Lambie said
1t had been his experience, as we'll
as that of most old lawyers, that
when the Board of Viewers assessments
were taken into count the jury almost
invariably reduced the assessment, and
increased the amount of his claim for
damages when he appealed on that. He
of cd Tncf hat II
where the Board of Viewers awarded a man
s., 200 damages for street improvement;
but he took it TO court, the jury awarded
him S, 900 and he got it. In this case every
property holder will have the right to ap-
peal, and every appeal will 60 to a different
jury, with the probabilities that most of the
claims will be increased rather than less
ened. Mr.. Lambie said the city would en-
bark in a scheme with this ordinance. the
termination of which it could not see or an
ticipate. The people who were pushing it
had not over 200 feet frontage, and the ma
jority Of the property holders were either
indifferent or opposed to it. This
improvement was called public
necessity. If that was the case, why had it
stopped at Snlthfeld street? That state
meut was founded on error. Fifth avenue
travel would not go to Diamond street, be-
cause Fifth avenue had an outlet, while
Diamond street, even widened, would be out
OF the way, almost as much as Fourth ave-
nue.. Mr.. Lambie thought the widening a
good thing for the Diamond street property;
it would increase the value greatly, but a
minority had no right to force this burden
of expense, this improvement upon an in
different and protesting majority. That the
scheme was not public improvement Mr..
Lambie thought was evidenced by the fact
that there were no representatives Of other