Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-07-22
E. N. BigelOw, Head Of the Depart
ment of Public Works, Found
Guilty of Maintaining a
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE WHARF.
Tie Defendant Claims He Would Make
Big Improvements if Given
Sufficient Time,
RAISING TIE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.
Wholesale Dealer in Trouble for Allowing Liquor to
be Drank on the Premises.

E. NJ. Bigelow, Chief of the Department
of Public Works, was convicted in the
Criminal Co7rt yesterday of maintaining a
nuisance on the Allegheny wharf, from
Third to Eleventh streets. The prosecutor
was Il. B. Rulings, of the firm of Hulings
Brothers, whose place OF business is
located on Duquesne way, and who use the
wharf to unload stone from barges. Joined
with the Chief as co-defendants, were George
Esan, Mike Egan and j. L. Peabody, en-
ployes of the Department of Public Works.
The trial of the case occupied almost the
entire day in Judge Golfers branch OF the
Criminal Court, the morning session being
consumed In securing jury and hearing
the evidence of the prosecutor. Mr.. HUI
ings testified that the defendants had
dumped earth, clay, etc., on the wharf,
which rendered it almost useless to boats
and rivermen. 1t was established as
wharf in 1886.
TESTIMONY ALL ALIKE.
The other witnesses were: Thomas n
Rees, James Milligsn, John a Wood, W.
d. Lupton, w. S. Power. John Schultz.
John S. Graf, J. Terrence, William Gill
christ and E. NJ. Bigelow, vino all testified
to the fact that the wharf had been OBJ
structed in the manner charged.
Mr.. Bigelow testified that the wharf had
never been paved, and q number of holes
had been worn into it. He had ordered the
other defendants in the case to fill these holes
up with EARTH and as they acted under his di-
rections, he would take all the responsibility.
He had made plan to repair or rather to re-
construct the wharf in way similar to the
vharves at Montreal, Canada. He denied part
of published interview in which he was
quoted as saying he intended to convert this
wharf into park. His plan was to drive
line of piles and build wall at low waite:
mark. Then he would grade the wharf down
TO this wall and pave it, The present grade of
the wharf is very irregular. The old grade has
been greatly altered by the bridges and by the
increasing oil business. He was not author
lied specifically by City Councils to do this
work.
Mr.. Bigelow's testim -ay closed the case and
J. ). Ferguson, attorne7 for the prosecution,
asked the Court to state in his charge that
under the act of June IA. 1857 Mr.. Bigelow had
no authority to begin the Work of changing
the wharf
RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY.
City Attorney Morelan1 objected to this He
said that Mr. Bigelow was responsible for the
streets being kept in a safe condition At the
beginning of each fiscal year he made his plans
for opening new streets and repairing Old ones
he estimates the cost of the work and Councils
pass upon it. Under the law he has the power
70 begin new work, and does it rIgh. along.
Mr. Moreland then made his ad 'cess TO the
jury. He said that the work had only begun
on the wharf and that Mr. Bigelow only wanted
a chance to complete it when L. would have to
be acknowledged as one of the best works ever
constructed
AHARD RULE.
It would be applying very &rd RUE to con-
vict Mr. Bigelow of maintaining a nuisance
while be was at work on an improvement. that |
would be such great benefit to the people of |
this city.
In his address Mr.. Ferguson said that under |
the law Mr.. Bigelow had only ministerial au- |
thority and cannot originate any new work. as |
he has done on the wharf. Mr.. Bigelow had |
testified himself that eight years ago, before |
he went into his present office he had formed |
the project of park the wharf. He in |
tended TO build 25-foot wall at low water line,
make two 40-foot streets down the waters |
edge. and place two floats outside for boats TO /
land. The rest of the space he intended to fill |
up and convert into park. The jury could |
easily see what great nuisance this would be
in time of high water. The Exposition had /
taken 800 feet off of this side of the Alegheny's
channel and Allegheny City had cut off 900 |
feet on the other. This would food all lower
Allegheny if the park project is carried out.
In making his charge Judge Collier refused
Mr.. Ferguson's request to state that Mr.. Bige-
low had expressly violated the act of 1884. The
Court read extracts from the new city charter
and city ordinance creating hls office and these |
gave Mr.. Bigelow the power to do this work.
Mr.. B1gelow had right to repair or improve
the wharf, but no right to change it.
The jury retired, and in half an hour returned
verdict of guilty.
Chief Bigelow was seen after the verdict was
rendered and said: I'VE are simply awaiting
orders from the Court If we are directed to
remove the things complained of we will do so.
but, as IL is, we not at all called upon 10 do
what belongs to other departmentS' |