New-York tribune., 1895-12-29
TO KEEP SIDEWALKS CLEAR
LAWRENCE ]. CALLAHAN REVIEWS HIS
OLD FIGHT.
HE DECLARES HE WILL WIN IF BY ANY PoSsI
BuITY OF LAW THE PEOPLES RIGHTS TO
UNoBsTaUCTED STREETS CAN

BILITY OF LAW THE PEOPLES RlGHIS ~
UNoBsTaUCTED STREETS CAN
BE ENFORCED.
Lawrence J. Callahan Of the grocery house OF
Callahan & Kemp, at No. Al Vesey-st. has once
more renewed his crusade against the people who
obstruct the sidewalks in the lower part OF the city
For sixteen years ne has waged pretty steady war
against those who infringe on the rights or pedes-
trans and has managed to make them keep their
Instructions inside the 'stoop line" Now he wants
these nuisances to be swept away. While he has
fought for the principle that the public has rights
which must not be viola ted he has scrupulously ad
hered to its enforcement in carrying on his own
business When the store now occupied by the firm
was built. about four years ago, he had II 80 ar
ranged by having deep in the 'front.' that all
the articles for show are placed within the line
made by the outer wall of the building and the side
walks are always kept clear for the use of pedes-
trans
Mr. Callahan was seen last evening by Tribune
reporter in regard to the matter. and he said: Il
have fought this thing for a good while, and am
going 10 stop it il possible. | have complained to
William Henkel Superintendent of the Bureau or
Encumbrances If he does nothing will complain
to Commissioner Coils of the Department of Public
Works and if not successful there will go to the
Mayor. If all of these people fail me- there are
other ways TO accomplish the same purpose.
ION the 9th OF last July sent letter to Superin-
tendent Henkel complaining OF the distractions on
the sidewalks about Washington Market. where
they have even gone far as'to build shed over
portion OF the sidewalk. | demanded the removal of
these distractions. Mr. Henkel referred me to the
then Commissioner of Public Works, William Brook
field He refused to disturb the people who OBJ
structed the sidewalks on the ground that the city
received compensation from them in accordance
with supposed ordinance passed by the Board of
Aldermen some time ago. No such ordinance was
ever passed
Decem |
letter again making a demand for the suppression
OF the nuisance. This demand was based upon a
decision rendered by Francis NJ Scott counsel for
the corporation and published In the City Record
OF December r." The decision was follows:
We simply say that when The city. without the
statute. assumes to grant TO private Individual the
right 10 obsruct a puohc highway while IN the the
privilege takes compensation. 1t must be regarded
obstruction IL continued by reason OF and under
such license. and II must be liable for all damages
which may naturally result 10 a third party who Is
injured on his person his property by reason or
In consequence OF the placing Of such obstruction
In the highway This Is none too severe IA liability.
the d!scontnuance OF a custom OF granting permits
has no right to author,ze or license Such iicenses
is mater bN OF puse nStore are con1ta1y
and the licensees are continually acting under
them. and obs,ructing the public streets. to the
When IT y understood that such license has not
only no effect In the way of legalizing obstruc-
the maintenance Of public nuisance and liable
for the damage caused thereby, such knowledge
may perhaps restrain the utterly Illegal practice
and tend In some degree to the protection OF the
public in the lawful use OF It's own highways
The wanton and useless obstruction OF the public
sidewalks In this city has reached such a state
that wonder how the public can stand 1t. AS for
myself, | do not mean to any longer. There are
also some other business men In this neghborhood
VINO are willing to enter this crusade and In fact
have already done So"