The morning call., 1894-06-21
by the proposed change of grade aggregat

by the proposed change of grade aggregat-
ed $500. 900.
After the securing of a petition signed
by a majority of the property-owners,
favorlng the proposed change of grade,
City and County Surveyor FitZhugh drew
up an assessment district, the lines OF
which were twice the number of feet OF
property favoring the proposed change.
The City and County Attorney was con-
suited before the district was drawn up,
and his ideas on the law relating to the
creation of assessment districts were
asked for. After the City and County
Surveyor had drawn up his district a reso-
luton of intention for the proposed grade
was passed to print by the Supervisors.
From that time on crowd of protestants
appeared, particularly on the north line Of
Market street, who claimed that by lower
ing the grade their property would be rem
dered inaccessible. Among the prOtes-
tants was the Spring Valley Water Com
pany, which owns reservoir at the Mar
ket-street cut.
When the protests were con sidered yes
terday morning the chambers of the Board
OF Supervisors were packed to suffoceton.
Besides the protestants there were present
many representatives of the Market-stree g
Improvement Club who were instrumental
in securing the majority petition for the
work.
Supervisor Denman presided in the
absence Of Mayor Ebert aud asked that ali
speeches be limited.
The first SPEAKER was Attorney Kellogg,
representing the SpriDg Valley Water
Company. Attorney Kellogg first attacked
the district proposed by the City and
gerrymandering. He said the Spring
Valley did not object to a change of grade
on Market street, but did not want as
radical change as the one proposed. If
the district were widened, the grade made
less radical and provision made for chang
ing the grade on cross streets, the Spring
Valley would not object. Carrot Nc.
EDerney spoke against the change of
grade, and said that his clients withdrew
from the petition for a change of grade,
which left the petitioners without the
requisite majority. He said the right of
his clients to withdraw from the petition
had been questioned, but he believed they
had perfect right to withdraw.
Ex-Chief Justice RhOades of the Supreme
Court attacked the cOnstitut ionOlity Of the
act under which the work was ordered.
When the pfotestants had concluded
Supervisor stanton moved that the protest
be sustained.
Supervisor Day said that this would not
be fair to the petitioners for the proposed
change OF grade who were present and de-
sired to be heard. He asked that they be
given hearing, whereupOn Supervisor
Stanton withdrew his motion, saying this
was just course.
Supervisor Dundon believed that the i'm
provement proposed In removing the hump
from Market street was a great one. The
question bad been agitated for twenty
years and the board should go slow in the
matter CT sustaining protest
Supervisor Rogers settled the whole mat
ter by offering the following resolution,
which was adopted:
be and is hereby requested 10 furnish the board
with opinion as TO the following matters in
con nectton with the proposed change OF grade
on Market street:
Flrst-Wbat is meant by "a majority of the
properly" in the statute Of 1893 governing this
matter?
Second-Need the petition OF the owners of
property precede the resolution OF intention. or
may II be made after the resolution and before
The change Is ordered?
Thlrd-If any property-owner petition for the
change before the resolution OF intention is
passed can he withdraw from the petition be-
lore the change Is ordered?
Fourth-Must the Mayor approve the resolu-
ton OF intention?
fifth-Must the Mayor approve the change of
grade?
Sixth Does the fling of objections stop the
grade? II so, the objections OF what number
of owners?
Seventh-Does the act provide for damages
Tor persons not fronting on the streets the
grade or grades Of which are to be changed?
Eighth-Does the act provide for damages TO
persons not in the dsirict outlined?
Ninih-lf 10 does not what means are there
whereby such persons may obtain compensa-
ton?
Tenth-If there are none is the act constitu-
tional?
Eeventh-Does not section 40 imply that
lots not on the street the grade OF which is to
be changed may have damages?
Twelfth-Does not section 80 imply that
damages shall only be awarded TO those whose
property fronts on the street the grade of which
is TO be changed?
Thlrteenth-If so are not sections SO and 40
In conflict? II so which Is to prevail?
Fourteenth-Is tie act of 1898 constitu-
tional?