Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-06-30
STRONG TERMS USED
By Mayor GOurley in His Veto of the
Poor Farm Ordinance.
HE OBJECTS TO THE RIVER FRONT.
Controller MOrrow's Letter on Street I'm
prOvements and
THE NEED OF A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS

luL NEGU VH u WIZ VT 1uL Ol1lDLNE
The following is the Mayors message to
Councils referred to in the Council proceed.
ings on another page, in which he gives his
reasons for vetoing the Poor Farm ordinance:
ITO the President and Members of Select Council;
s'GENrLEMrS-I respectfully return to your
honorable body without my approval, AN
ordinance mo. 6S5 of Select Council) au-
tholizing and directing advertisements for
proposals to the city of Pittsburg for the sale
10 said city of real estate to be used for the
relief and employment of the poor etc, etc.
This ordinance is objectionable in two re-
spects. In the first place it confines the pur-
chase to a river front, and in the second
place it does not specify even approximately
the number of acres required speaking in
general terms believe that the best inter
ests of the city demand that all ordinances,
specifications and advertisements inviting
proposals for material and work, or for the
sale to the city OF supplies apparatus or real
estate should be SO framed as to open the
door to the widest possible range of competi-
tion. 1t will doubtless be generally ad-
mitted thatfhis position is in harmony with
the established rules OF business, and in full
accord with the spirit of the law governing
such matters. Such, however, has not been
the established policy of this city. On the
other hand, the tendency has been TO narrow
the sphere OF competition. As a consequence
our streets are paved with "A certain kind of
material: our fire equipments are confined
to apparatus having some exclusive device;
and the proposals for the sale to the city of
land for a Poor Farm are limited to a half
dozen of people who own suitable property
on river front.
Speaking From Past Experience.
what has been our past experience in at
tempting to purchase land fronting on our
rivers? Our first effort demonstrated that
almost every farm in the county inspected
by your committee was controlled by a syn
dicate that held an option on the property
at Il price less than half that demanded from
the city. Property that was held by the
rightfQl owner at $3.50 to $3.50 an acre was gen.
erously offered by philanthropic syndicate
to the CITY at $500 or $500 an acre. Taking ad-
vantage of the city's efforts to buy home
for her unfortunate poor, these enterprising
spectators deemed it religious duty to
themselves and the community to thrust if
possible, their arms into the treasury of the
city and take out $4,000 or 100000 to be
equally divided between themselves and
the legitimate owner of the property.
1.-The interests of the city cannot be pro-
NOTED by the encourT cement OF this kind of
enterprise. On whatever business princi-
piles il may be based, however ingeniously it
may be explained, in its practical applies
tiOn it must be recognized as a sort OF legal
lied robbery. 1t simply means the taking of
money from the treasury without giving an
equivalent in return. 1t is species of spoil
iatIon to which the public have in measure
become accustomed, but which is, neverthe
less, an outrage on the rights of the people.
Upon the wild frontier, in the midst of a
rude, ututOred people, it is no uncommon
occurrence for travellers on q secluded high
way to be waylaid and robbed; but the plum
derers of great cities are the excrescent
growth of an enlightened civilization. And
what OF our Secondattempt? concerning one
of the properties offered it is unnecessary to
speak. The unfavorable comments made at
the time regarding IT, by the. press and the
public, must be stall fresh in the memory of
each member of your honorable body. The
party representing aEOther property had,
Immediately prior to the presentation of his
proposal, obtained an option on a large part
OF the land offered at two-dtths of the price
demand d by him from the city. Still anoth-
ershad been offered to private individuals at
two hundred dollars an acre less than the
price set forth in his proposition to the Con-
rroller. But one of the farms recommended
by your committee as suitable for the re-
Quired purpose was offered at anything like
an approach to its real value.
"In view. therefore, ofour past experience
why Should incorporate In the present
ordinance a restriction that will again rem
der the city subject to the power of a few
individuals determined to take advantage
of her apparent necessity by demanding
wild and eNtravagant prices for land which,
for farming purposes, is not worth more
than $3.50 an acre? l cannot think that as
individuals and in the management of our
own affairs we would pursue such a course.
1t does not seem just to the city. If we
must have property fronting on river the
striking out of the restriction to which l
refer will not in the least prevent its pur-
will extend the field of competition; and, as
result other available farms in the county
will be proposed, and at prices, too, If L mis-
take not, that will compel those who control
property on the river front to review their
estimates and reduce very materially the
excessive values placed on their land.
As to the Necessity of a River Front.
''Is it not reasonable to suppose that by
such action we might be able to save $4,000
or $4,000 to the city? Is it not worth the
effort? But, again, is u river front essential
to q poor farm? ] have no hesitation in
stating that do not believe it is. l know
the argument is advanced that there must
be a river to supply the necessary water and
provide suitable drainage. If the first part
OF this argument be true. what then becomes
OF similar institutions maintained and sup
ported by cities and counties that have no
large streams and rivers? II there be truth
in the second, it is only proper to add thati
is an unhappy condition of things that
makes it necessary to pollute the stream
which supplies our city with water, by
emptying into it the filth and sewerage and
fetid matter that might be used to better
purpose in fertilizing the soil. From Gin
cinnati we have the testimony that river
front Is not at all essential. 1t might be
convenience, nothing more. Arteslan wells
supply their poor farm with an abundance
of good water. From Philadelphia we have
testimony of like character. Boston, Bal
timOre and Columbus speak in a similar
strain. New York says that land fronting
a s. u
farming purposes.
THUS we might present cumulative eyi-
dence from other large cities tending to es
Jablish the fact that there are many mana
gers of institutions similar to ours who do
not share in the opinion that q Poor Farm
should necessarily border on a river. Such
location is a convenience, but not neceS-
slty. II the convenience could be had for
reasonable compensation, it might be well
enough to have it; but that such q thing is
Impossible has been conclusively demon
strated by the experience we have already
had And furthermore, it may be proper to
state that within a compafatiyely brief
period Of time the available river fronts
within the limits Of this county will be
monopohzed by manufacturing Industries
and growing towns. To such a site, there
fore, the encrOachments of population will
in a few Years constitute anew the objections
so persistently urged against the location of
the present farm. If this be "a truthful state
ment, and l do not believe it will be dis
puted, il presents an unanswerable argu-
Inent against the purchase of an expensive
farm bordering on the river.
Popular Opinion for a Small Farm.
From the information supplied by the
cities to which 1 have referred, and others
which might be mentioned, it becomes evil
dent that the prevailing opinion is in favor
OF a small farm. Such farm is the more de-
sirable for the reason that the inmates of
an almshouse are, generally speaking, so de-
Dilitated by disease ana old age as to render
them practically useless III the performance
OF manual LABOR. While the inmates of the
insane department possess more physical
strength, 1t will hardly be seriously main
tanned that men OF disordered intellects and
shattered minds are capable of rendering re-
liable or effective service in the cultivation
OF an extensive farm. 1t is moreover true
that very large proportion of those who
nnd homes in our poorhouse have never had
the opportunity OF acquiring a knowledge of
agricultural pursuits. Being ignorant OF the