New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-02-15
HOW TO SAFE THE CITY HALL.
WILLIAM H. WEBB SAYS THAT THE COURTS
COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY APPEALED TO.

WILLIAM II. WERE SAYS THAT THE Car-Rrs
COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY APPEALED TO.
Inc project OF appealing to the courts under the
Taxpayers act TO restrain the Mayor and New Mu
nicipal Building Commission from tearing down the
present City Hall is receiving the Endorsement Of
many taxpayers OF the city who DESTROYS OF find.
Ing out whether the who provide the revenue for
maintaining the city government have rights which
the authorities must respect. william H. Webb. the
wellknown shipbuilder one Of NETWORKS most pub
spirited apd enterprsing citizens writes from Au-
gusa, Ga. February q where he Is spending the
winter saying that he is in thorough accord with the
attitude OF The Tribune this question. He believes
that "f determined effort is made in an appeal to
the courts the removal Of the old City Hail. the most
harmonious and chase structure existing In the city,
can be prevened.'
Mr.. Webb adds: al feel SUFFICIENT interest IN this
matter to Join any five six citizens Of
substantial character In defrayng the legal expenses
attending effort In the courts to prevent the de-
mol.tion OF the present City Hall. though am In
favor Of building new one'
As encouraging precedent for such a suit. Mr.
Webb calls attention to action brought against the
dty, in which he was one Of the plaintiffs. in 1881
to prevent the destruction OF the reservoir at Forty
eecond-st. and Fifth-ave which resulted In the de-
feat OF the city.
The Legislature Of 1881, at the Instance NJ Hubert
o. Thompson. Commissioner Of Public Works. and
Others interested had passed act Chapter 436.
June 1891 for the removal OF the Forty secondst
reservoir and the connecting pipes and mains. and
10 Grade the ground occupied by the reservoir TO
level with the adjacent street In manner suitable
for the purposes OF public park In the suit which
Mr.. Webb refers to- William II. Webb. Orlando B.
Potter and Nathan c. Ely were plaintiffs. and the
Mayor Aldermen and C0mm0nalty OF New-forh'
Hubert o. Thompson, Commissioner OF Public WORKS
Allan Campbell Controller, ana f. North. Daniel
sunbury Samuel Conover and John II. Lydccker. the
Of Asse defendants.
yers OF No 143 Nassau st. attorneys for the
plaintiffs and William c. Whitney counsel 10 the
Corporation and David J. Dean, Assistant counsel
were attorneys for the defendants In 'heir com
plant the Plaintiffs allcge that the de'endahts were
proceeding under the Law mentioned 10 remove the
reservoir. important ard necessary part VI VI,
water supply OF the city. and that such remoVai
would cause great damage 10 real estate In that part
the city south of the reservoir and cause 'ncresu
rkk and hazard OF fire. They declared the ACT vi
June 4, 1881 TO be unconstitutional anu, '"e'eio''
vN. and asked that the defendants mish' pe pr
tsslly enjolned from performing any act rep'.reu
H aid law. The plaintiffs showed that uhoel '''
hs the cost Of the removal and eraoInk w"s
borne By owners OF property between sMtn-N.'
Thirty -seventh-st Mad,son-avc and Forty hl'h-s
and that they were property owners within the oo"i
shes described.
Final Judgment IN the case given DV '"S"''
Francis A. McCornber, OF the supreme oo"i' ~
June %. 1892 in favor OF the plainuhS' cn!o''""o
The defendants from performing any act unuer 'n'p
Ter 4jG, Laws OF 1881. declaring the act No'' ' -
20 effect and allowing plaintiffs full costs 20 com
Pete was the victory OF the plaintiffs that not oN
was no appeal taken from Judge McCombers !"us
nsn but next year the defendans Sae s CON- ON
repeal OF the obnoxious statute. Mr.. WcDD y I. -,
hdent that similar triumph would follow , sut
restrain the Mayor and the present c,,y nd I'm,
cm the removal OF the peopiS, oy Wo1id be per.
mitted to stand