Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-01-06
ASK WHAT'S RIGHT
That Is All the Toll Gate Com
pany Folks Insist
is THEIR POSITION JUST NOW
Mr.. Anderson States His Case in Re
szsS 10 the Reads value--Czrpen-
Ter Cites the Statute Of 1871.

William H. Anderson, secretary o.
the south Dly.son street gravel foad
company was usieryied yesterday at
ternoon BY . reporter for Tag HERALD
IN regard 10 the e.ty's beg aiming con-
temlatofy proceedings azalnst the
company. lie said: ''Of course the
city can 10 that i Il sees fit. though
hardly think 10 necessary. The stock
nolders OF the company vii meet Janu-
AIRY 8, and ltn quite probable that the
matter will be dlscussed. The com-
pany has acted entirely fair with the
city. IL nAs made no propositions 10
the city. On the contrary the city has
made all the oyerEares. The company
offered 90 step ASIDE anu allow the city
10 do the same. Then each could Call
N . mzn. the two u examine TIE
road and determine upon price III
they could not agree y thlru could DC
called upon znc whatever q malorlty
OF them decided would be tinas. IL has
been stated IN the council that se5 900
Was the price We asked. That state
ment Is erroneous. The street
-sr company came to Us seyerai
.Imes aad asked Us 10 name
OF figure. We did 50. and il was never
taken up. The last time We were ap-
preached we figuFe1 up what money
had been invested. what the receipts
were up 10 date. and on thls basis ny
ured what the rtal would earn IN the
next forty years. That was what II
was worth 10 ne. Tbs men VINO have
their money invested II the road are
Citizens OF Grand Rapids. and all they
want i what Ia right. In regard 10 that
section OF Howels Annotated statutes,
which requires the registering OF = sur
vey with the register Of deeds, can
safely say that Il does not apply TO cur
road. That is IN the act or 1913, while
we are organized under an act of 1851.
1t has been said that our gate on South
DIVISION street IVES moved inside the
city limits one cay after the law crea-
ting the city limits went into effect.
That IS wrong. Our gate had been
there five or SIX years, and We simply
built house tor the collector 10 1--we
IN We have rights, and are protected
by the recent decision OF the supreme
court.
Carpeatsr Quotes the Law.
AlCerN1U NaEpcEteF, WHO - msCu
interested In the removal OF the toll
gate. thinks that section 1926 OF the
laws of 1871 - applicable TO the case IN
question. Ii is as follows: 1.-The super
VISOR Of any township, the mayor OF
any Incorporated city, and the presl-
dent OF any incorporated vilisge, IN
which . toll gate may be located on any
such road, whenever he shall be of the
opinion that .uch gate is unjust tn the
pubic interest, by reason of the prox-
unity of divergng roads, or for other
reasons. may, on at least fifteen days
written notice TO the president or secre-
AIRY OF said company, apply to
she Circuit court of the county
n which such gate is located, for an or
Ter to alter or change the location of
,aid gate; the court on such applica-
ton, and ON hearing the respective par
ties, and on viewing the premises, if
the SAID. court shall deem such view
necessary, shall make such order IN the
matter as TO the sad court may seem
Just and proper. Such order shall be
observed by the respective parties, ami
may be enforced by attachment or
otherwise, as said court shall direct;
and the decision OF SAID court shall be
final Ia the matter, and said court may
direct the payment OF costs N the
premises as shall b deemed just anG
equitable.
Alderman Carpenter thinks the city
should order the gate removed IN the
manner provided.