Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-06-19
j. W. POTTS
On the Doctrine of COnfiscatiOn ioi
the Public Good.


EDIToRs HERALD-Fifteen years ago,
when ex-Mayor Beaudry and myseii
were cutting down the hills on Temple
and Second streets, the people would
mass bv and swear at us for cutting down
down and running the hills. II we ap'
ulied for survey or a culvert or bridge,
the then City Council would ignore our
Claims and tell us there was no one 10
t.avel those streets, and consequently no
need of roads, that all we wanted was TO
have the CITY do work for our own per-
sonal interest. They were glad TO get
rid of the lands at any price, and actu-
allv refused to let those to whom they
sold the lands have water for domestic or
anv other purpose. The result was, we,
Mr. Beaudry, myeelf and others, bought
the lands and cut down Temple and Sec
ond streets to their present grades at
cost of $4,000, and Mr.. Beaudry took
water from springs on his own lands and
forced it to the top of the hills with pow
erful engines at enormous expense, and
nv these means the hills were made ac
cessible and desirable for residence prop
erty. and soon began to yield large rev.
enre to the city in the way of taxes.
There was system of street grades es-
tablished to suit those living on the hills,
showing no disposition to disturb the
hills or hollows more than was desired
by those occupying them, and laws were
established to protect people occupying
the hill lands, to regulate the amount OF
cutting down and filling up amongst
themselves, so that the high hill owners
would have to compromise with the man
in the low valley or hollow, and thus be-
tween them establish such grade as was
equitable between them, it being consid-
cred no one else's business, as they were
the only ones interested, and had to make
and pay for all their own Improvements;
unless, however, at some future time
there should be necessity for better
road or street for the good of other per-
SONS in other localities. For this purpose
there was a clause inserted in the charter
providing that the great public should
have the right to cut down or fill up in
any street so as to suit its convenience,
provided that the public pay any and all
damages sustained by individuals. This
looks as though it ought to satisfy every
body, and would and does satisfy all
honest people, but mankind is prone to
take what belongs to others without COM
pensating for the same. Especially is
this 30 in reference to taking or damag-
ing private property for what they call
the public good. Who is the public :?
Has not one man, whose property is
damaged for one hundred other men, as
much right to re cognition as the hundred?
Do away with the principal of protecting
individual rights, and you do away with
the whole structure of civilization, and
throw the world into anarchy, and COM
munism-the principle that might makes
right-will prevail; the strongest man or
party will take that which belongs to the
weakest, and chaos will reign upreme.
Well, you y,we don't propose to do this.
But this is practically the doctrine OF our
City Surveyor and City Council. They
propose grade on Bellevue avenue that
would cost half million dollars more
thon all the property on both sides of the
street for 400 yards would be worth when
brought to the grade, on the ground that
it would be great benefit to the public.
There are many things that would be
benefit to the public, if you leave out a
few individuals. For instance, it would
be great benefit to the pubic
to con6scate all the money i'll
the Farmers & Merchants Bank
and the National Banks, provided
YOU consider that the bankers are no
part of the public. 1t would be great
benefit to the public and to the future
generations to carry my proposed boule-
ward into execution, and to straighten
Spring street and Main street (Which the
City Council has just as much right to do
as to straighten Bellevue avenue), pro-
vided YOU do not consider the people on
Fort, Main and Spring streets a part of
the public. If the City Engineer, the
City Council and all others will just
keep their eyes open when they propose
to benefit one part of the great public
and Sc e that it does not damage another
part of the public, who have as much
right to protection as that part that is
benefited, 1 think they will take more
time in arriving at their conclusions
when they propose great public i'm
provement. L. W. POTTS.