Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-03-30
GOOD WALKS WANTED.
But Some People Think Chief Bige-
lows Sidewalk Ordinance
WOULD ENCOURAGE MON0POLIES.
Brick Is Not in Good Repute as Paving
Material for a City.
A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED
A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED

The Mayors veto of the sidewalk ordi
nance and the action of Councils In passing
it notwithstanding, although not a nov
city in municipal legislation, caused much
talk Yesterday The ordinance itself had
been published in brief several times, but
there were few who seemed to understand II
until the Mayor dissected it at length In his
veto message.
Opinions vary greatly as to the merits OF
the law. There are some who think it un-
constitutional and that if enforced it Will
soon be carried into court and struck down.
Others find fault with it because of its invi-
tation to monopoly, urging that the city
does not hold out inducements for competi-
tion and that under the provisions OF this
law it would require such great e1pendl-
ture for plant that persons not now engaged
in laving sidewalks will not dare to venture
into the business. But the views of nearly
all seem to be that the main idea of the ordi-
nance is the correct one were it not for Its
arbitrary features, that it is but right and
proper that the authority to compel the lay
ing of sidewalks and keeping them uniform
and in repair should be vested in respon-
sible official, and that on prominent busi-
ness thcroughfares specific kind OF pave
ments should be insisted on.
Its Constitutional Weak Spot.
Mayor Gourley inclines to this view Of
the situation, though his objections to the
ordinance are well known, and, as he stated
Yesterday, he has serious doubts as to its
he said, "gives the city authorities power
to REQUIRE sidewalks laid and kept in repair,
and if persons are notified and fail to lay or
repair the walks in front of their property
the city can do the work and file liens
against the property for the cost
But it does not give the city
power to determine the kind of
material to be used for sidewalks and In my
Judgment that is the constitutional weak
spot in this ordinance. 1t looks to me as If
any owner of property could put down brick
or any other recognized sidewalk material
and the authorities could not prevent its
being put down or legally tear it up.
81 am in favor of flag stone or imitation
stone sidewalks for tho business streets
downtown where the property is valuable
enough to justify the expense, and in the
rural districts where only a narrow walk is
necessary and the cost but little more than
for brick walks. But there are many streets
where the narrow walks will not do and
where the property owners cannot stand the
expense of heavy stone sidewalks. On such
streets brick walk properly laid will an
swer all the purposes and a greatly reduced
cost.
Chief BireIow VIII Not Be Arbitrary.
81 have no fear that Chief Bigelow will en-
force the power given him to an objectiona-
BILE degree. He has promised me that be
would not and never intended to- If he is
able to satisfy the people and keep out of
court with his ordinance it will probably
answer very well, but it will be dangerous
to the bill to have court sit in judgment
on it
Assistant City Attorney House thinks
the bill is constitutional and just the sort
this city has needed for many years. "The
Supreme Court has decided that a street ex-.
tends from building line to building line.
The sidewalk is only a part of the street.
You will find that in ordinances hereafter
the paving of the sidewalks will be pro-
vided for in many cases. 1t would be to
the interest of property holders to have this
done, as it would cost about 20 per cent less
to have sidewalks laid when the workmen,
tools and materials are all on the ground
than to make a separate job OF 1t. The
statement that this ordinance invites monop-
oly seems to me to be stretched. 1t rather
gives a range to competition in nv estima-
tion and that is the best thing to be done"
Fiercely Opposed to the Ordinance.
Councilman Hugh Ferguson is fercely |
opposed to the ordinance He says it |
curtails competition to few firms |
and that under it the cost of pave |
ments will be advanced, instead of less |
ened as it should be. 81 opposed it |
when it was before the committee" said he, |
'and have continued to do so ever since. 1 |
have no doubt that it is not in accord with |
will enforce it on someone who will take it |
to court have nothing against stone side |
walks, and 1 believe in having them uni |
formly laid, but not under such an arbitrary |
law as this j"
Councilmen Brown, Ford and Taggart are |
all well pleased with the bill Mr. Brown |
voiced the sentiments of the others when he |
said: 1.-THE day for brick sidewalks is long |
past. Stone is nearly as cheap these days |
and much better. We have needed an or |
to compel uniformity in sidewalks |
for years, and I'm glad we have it. 1 should |
like to see it go farther and do as they do in |
There the sidewalks are given |
out by contract by Councils along with the |
streets. This insures uniformity and saves |
money to the property holders. 1t is prog
ress, and if there is anything we need it is |
progress. do not think it is right to COM
pei a man to pave the sidewalk in front of |
his property just as the Chief of Public
Works may dictate"
81 think the Mayor was right" said John
A. Renshaw, the grocer, 'tand L deprecate
the action Of the Council. 1t looks as if |
that body had entirely ignored individual
rights. have studied asphalt pavements,
and L never saw but one that would give
thrip for when used for sidewalks
Councilman George W. Wilson said:
''All the Objectionable features were elimi-
mated from the ordinance in committee be-
fore it was submitted to Council for action.
The talk of it being in the interest of GER
tain contractors is all bosh, and there can be
no monopoly. Anybody that can work ce-
ment can put down the pavement. 1t will
do great good for Pittsburg."
You Should Read This.
If you are sick and have not been helped,
vhy do Won not write a fnll deScrintlon of |