Telegram-herald. ([Grand Rapids, Mich.) 18??-1892, 1891-05-12
CONSTOCK ON THE DOCK
He Is Heartily IN Favor OF Straight
Lines.
CoElE,DS YAreR rHLs POSITION.
Ana shows the Faiississ OF Jack Hay-
wards ban IA Establish the Iinss
I'M Favor OF One as Asainst
All the OIsssr owneta

Editor Tslsc gaz usKklp:
Does any one suppose that II requires
a quit claim deed fsoas riparian owners
10 protect the channel from obstruc-
lions between lie dock lines once legal
ly estabiishecs 1 had believed dock
lines were for that legitimate purpose
and no other, aud that heavy penalties
would attach 10 any infringement upon
such public rights TO tie flee How of
the water. Outside of those dock lines
Is private property subject 10 any pro
per use OF owners. and those tines
should be straight as possible with due
regard 10 private rights. Had the line
agreed upon at about the third meeting
OF the property owners been adopted,
there need have been no controversy,
but Hayward's bill, as tits called. goes
into the condemnation OF property and
reserved rights which | never thought
existed. How property can be con-
demned without paving damages Is past
my conception. The city gives nothing
in establishing dock lines and receives
nothing except sanitary improvements
and the benefits of more property 10 bc
taxed, and in no caee should the city
DC liable to pay damages To any one.
Hsyward's selfish Amends.
Contrary TO the agreement before
alluded TO, Hayward demands that the
lines must not run straight past the
dam. but turn in 10 feet upon the east
side. although straight line will leave
nj
dam between 1t and the center of the
river as established when the banks
upOn both sides were IN their natural
state at the time the dam WAS built IN
1866. The East side owners built 40
feet of dam and the west side 21l feet
for the passage of water over their part
of the dam. Does anyone believe that
the angle of ll0 feet IN upon private
property mostly belonging 70 the own
ers of water power upon the east side
canal and balance TO me individually
can be taken without exposing the city
u the payment of damage therefor?
defy anyone to show the necessity for
| taking 1t within the dock lines. This
ITO feet of dam was built to let the
water flow from the pond into the east
| side canal and space OF 50 feet below
| the dam was left TO let the surplus
water in the canal flow back into the
l river. 1t would be about on par with
| the authorities when laying out high-
] way ii they should angle INTO O. mans
I premises, taking his front yard into the
| street, because II was necessary Tor HIM
IL have passway to and from his res
| idencc. Ii the street was ever to be-
| come crowded and travel was 10 be all
| one way as water flows it would bring
no relief unless the street was broader
| below than above. Such as were not
able to keep within the straight line
| might be crowded into this space there
/ TO remain till the flood of travel had
passed. So with Hayward's theories.
| If the dam was extended one whole
| mile east and west II would only serve
as Il storage of less water than would
pass over the dam in one minute IN
| time of floods. 1t would not increase
the discharge of water below or pre-
/ vent it from setting back as il has done
| at times so as to leave no more per-
I ceptible fall at the dam than for dis
| lance above and below.
Building the Walls.
AS tobuilding stone walls on dock
lines think it should be matter of
| agreement among the owners
to do so where necessary
| do not believe that the State or city
| can compel shore owners to do j. ct
| their own expense, unless to abatc 4
nuisance upon the premises, and l COM
| mend Mayor Uhl for his action to pro-
T, tect the city against such expenses. l
! have fer quarter of century be-
| lieve. that fer sanitary purposes and
! greater safety to property the channel
should be made as nearly straight as
| possible through the city, and not more
| than 800 feet between dock lines, and /
now consider 1t a great detriment to the
| general welfare of citizens and the city
at large to have the time deferred by
/ reason of having Objectionable fea-
lures struggled into the bill seemingly
Tor the purpose OF covering individual
| aggressloIs heretofore made and by
/ implication reserylng 10 them rights
they never possessed. | would he pleased
| 10 have committee of citizens or of
| the mayor and council come and view
the premises and papers, and titles If
necessary, and let them decide what
the duty is of each and every individ-
ual owner in order to consuniate one Of
the greatest improvements ever made
or To be made IN the city.
] Offers of Quit claims.
I first learned that certain shore
owners had offered TO quit claim their
rights between dock lines through some
of the city papers. and afterwards that
such offers had been exhibited TO the
House committee st Lansing with the
statement that they we're not shown to
| me tor the reason that the bearer
thought 1t would do no good to do So
conveying the idea that | was one OF
the extremely avaricious characters
who stood ia the way of an equitable
arrangement. The facts are that
never expected TO have any right to OBJ
! struct the free How OF the water be-
tween dock lines in any way whatever,
aud il such is not the case / see but
little If any use IN having dock lines at
alt: and do not understand Why shore
owners could not close up the channel.
The principle acted upon by some indi-
| viduals seems tn be. he that can get the
| most IL the best fellow and | am ready