The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-13
PERHAPS OTvACATED
A NEW TURN IN II ALABAMA
STREET yIADUcr QUESTION.
peelaratory Resolution OF 1891 Never
Accepted by Railroad Company
AIabamn-st. Asphalt Injunction.

There was spread upon the minutes OF the
Board of Works yesterday a document
which records the donation Of Alabama
street TO the Union Railway Company by
the Sullivan administration. but 1t is a
question whether the grant will now hold
good in law. The C., II. & ID. Railroad
Company now has a suit against the city
for damages for closing the street and
preventing the company from obtaining a
proper approach 10 it's freight depot. The
suit is based, il is stated, upon the pre-
sumption that the Sullivan Hoard of Works
vacated the street. The decIaratory resolu-
ton bears date of June q, 1881, a short
time after the Sullivan board was created.
tn Democrats in the Council just before
that time had voted for the V-irginia-avenue
viaduct prefer made by the railroad COM
pany, although the railroad company was
compelled. under decisions of the courts, TO
give the city two v~ia1ucts instead of the
one which the Democrats agreed to take.
The vacation of Alabama street, an inn
portant public highFay. was a part of the
agreement. The restitution vacates Alabama
street from a poih. PC 4-1s feet south Of
Maryland TO louisiana. street. The Union
Railway Company was to save the city
harmless from any damage suits. 1t Is ex-
pressly stipulated that the exclusive occu-
pancy OF the street was not TO be granted
Till the railway company complied in every
way with the terms of the grant, which in
Guided the building Of the yiaduct-
The question as 10 whether the street has
actually been vacated hinges on a feature
OF the resolution, which says the vacation
snali not II legal till the provisions of the
resolution have been accepted by the rail-
way company. Another provision says the
company shall promptly file its acceptance
and bond The resolution was not to be in
force TIL then. There Is no record whatever
in the city archives Of an acceptance by
the company Of the terms OF the contract,
and ~ question arises whether the COM
pany 3ow has the right to accept the grant,
or whether it has been forfeited by the
lapse or time since 1881, more than four
years ago.
Attached to the resolution spread on the
mifqItes yesterday was a notice sent the
board two days after the adoption of the
resolution notifying the board that il had
not complied with the law relative TO the
vocation OF streets, inasmuch as there had
Pen no Advertisement OF the intended ac-
Jon. nor was the property to be benefited
pr damaged described. The board was re-
fferred to Sections s. to Y, inclusive, Of the
city charter. II would seem that the old
board allowed the matter TO go by default
after that.
If Alabama street is not legally vacated,
and Is yet an open street, this will nave an
important bearing on tn suit brought by
the c., H. & d. company against the city
Tor extensive damages. The present Board
Of Works has had much trouble with the
railroad company over the repair OF the
fogue's run bridge at Alabama street, the
company apparently contending that the
board had no right to order the repair OF
the bridge, as IL Is not on a public street.
but on vacated ground.
The vacating resolution has been in the
hands Of City Attorney Scott during the
Denny administration, and it was for the
saw 1t yesterday. He advised the board to
spread the record on its minutes.