Telegram-herald., 1890-08-14
POWERS GIGS BACK
Re Files his Answer In His Stone
wall suit.
IOCEIHER EfIH THREE lFFIDlyIIS.
Jaass Grove slgas order IsirsetiAs 8
me CiEY ~ sho~ Caass ~ hy the IR-
JaActisa shoald Sot BE Dissolved
-AasEhsF .ids or the story.

AE1-rt4AI AA~ctttylAs DAAils ftk.A-4Fy ~
4 Kle.nhaHs, attorneys for Hon. Wm.
I Powers, nisd a. answer 70 tne inIanc-
ton suit, brought by the city 70 restrain
M Powers from building a stone wal
along the bed 0f the Grand river on the
west SIDE. The papers were presented
to Judge Grove, he being the judge who
granted the iaIunct.On, and he signed
au order directing tAe city 20 show
cause why the Injunction should uOt be
dissolved. Accompanying tie answer
were three ahidayits. Oue was signed
by Ju0. :. Fagr, late member Of the
RCard Ot Puolic works, another by
Dorf skeeis, county surveyor, and
thHd by George M. Ames. assistant city
engineer. The aihdayits sad IN sub
stance that il the narrow waterway un-
Ger tae bgidge at the foot os the rapids
WAS sufficient 10 take care Of the water
I'D tAe river, then Mr. Powers stone
wal cOuA Lot possibly he an additional
obstruction 10 tue free flow OF the river
below tte dam.
The answer .s vOlum.uOus 20 say the
least aud Il goes into tne mInutest de-
tall OK the case. 10 begins by admit
tilg .lat the c.ty is Incorporated. Il
then SAYS -.at The defendant owns
about tlrge-tOurths OF mile of land
fronting ON rae west side oil the Grand
River, and u thc fall OF 1866 he, Ia con-
nectou with several other parties own
s.ss
privileges on the east SIDE. built u dam
across the river. 10 was constructed
With an ample chute ANA gates. at =
cost Ot $4,000, ana was duly legalHed
by an act of tue Legislature IN 1873. III
the same year defendant began exca-
waiting a channel amt canal on MS prop
eFty, which when completed WAS two
thirds Of a mlie ~ length, and cost
$780, 900. The dam, canal and guard
gates are known 4 : the West Side water
Improvements, and together they make
a water power and course valued At
many hundred thousand dollars. The
land between the canal and river make
a permanent solid earth embankment,
and the defendant claims he Is the
owner of ali the submerged lands to
the middle or thread OF the river, sub
Ject only TO the rights of the public.
He further calls attention To the fact
that navigation IS impossible in the rap
Ids, even IN high water, because OF the
four low bridges without draws and the
rocky bed OF the river. Also that ex-
tenslve eucrOachments have been made
from year 70 year upon the river bed on
the east side, until lI IS now from 200 to
GOO feet farther west than the original
hank. Thls narrowing or the river bed
causes the stream - gain in depth what
10 has lost N width. On this artificial
land valuable buildings have sprung up.
the value Of which IS several million OF
dollars. These permanent encroach-
hents and great Improvements, he
states, have been made with the acqul-
esccnce and consent OF the city and, in
fact, the municipality has assisted IN
making them.
The answer also calls attention To the
three IRON bridges buil. by the city with
their stone aDutments and stone sup
porting piers IN the bed OF the river.
Each Of these abusments are hundreds
OF feet west Of the original bank. The
e.. L. & /. bridge At the end of defend
ants canal - also cited. IL saws the
aDutments of this bridge are only fS9
feet apart, and there are four support
iuZ piers, each Is feet in width. built
in the bed OF the stream. The aggre-
gate obstruction ls placed at y feet in
wiath, So that it leaves only ff5 feet OK
cIrar waterway ~ this point. This
bridge. tac defendant SAYS. was built
with tbc fail consent of the city, and
tle contracted waterway beneath 10
has proved amply sufficient TO discharge
al. water or tne river with safety, even
in tme- of foods and trcshets.
Mr. Powers questions tue validity Of
the legislation u establishing the city
dock huc. Ha says that tHc Board OF
Public Works attempted and pretended
to esta iIi~li It along }be shores Ot the
river as Indicated by the survevors
maes IT. further states thas he IS tire
owner ot fhe uD!aui Uu tne west side
between ine clugl and tGe river. also
thr SgtUet- q lands tor q distance uf
itH fees east from the west tank. sub-
lfCt only CD tne Lats OF the public I'M
tHe river. Iue utle IS q vested right
WATCH Ae can. Is ho says. 0uly Ue de-
prFrd of U.s. tlr established law. ite
further SAYS t8It accord ug % the con
-t.u-fe1 of the STATE the leg Stature
ifs.t aFs no authority to t2Sc sub
r.cr-rd lrds along nav g3bl stream
iu ,ge s1o8 and shallow u0n-nlvigabl
water. tnr fThiic use. without maklu-
l-t cooperation therefor. and the
iI,.atarr hss no power to impose any
r-tg-ut upon Eis estate. dobarring
nint from tire benefits and constitutional
ca use as private property with
orr mas.ng t0 n,n C0mpeu satiCn.
II a~o answers that the so-Cailed
CutS and building Ine has not hecn es-
tantshcd ou tne west side of the river
ln tne waters aud bed of tho stream. as
ln some eases lt has been drawn across
jas pE aperty. which has always heen
upland. Ais1 that 70 runs along
tle last eaga and top surface of
defendant canal bank for defiance
ot over 500 feet south ct the dam. This
pr tended dock line. he states. - twenty
srvCn trct ca nis manisnd and runs
frauca thc Crescent Nj lsau8 other
nUalaes. He also answers that fn cr-
d- ahlsh a dock hne. 10 must bo
q ra ruler q genera scheme for widen
s.e rlVer to improve navigation ard
utH- Gse &C t8e RIVER. II taken for
h 3 use. the property mast hrst be
condemned.
faswer further states that the
Iant btheves tie for rne best IN
tst t-e rtlv 90 have stra gnt d0cs
laes tr'rl point O. pC.n on both sides
c rvrr when fney can hn legally
2 Iedc1cs. though, that hls VA.
n aavl tendency 80 hold caeE t1e
water. 81 that it would overflow the
trkssf ere northern limits in un1e OF
e n wee er He saws the clear water
us sni space weul BE- s3t fees sfteI
canir ton of the val az tae mar.
rtnn. At one pe5nt of tie
r.rar = few hilu3red feet between sire
Is ~. " hfit.Ee ~ STATES tnat e j.