Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-05-05

The Proposition to Give the La
Belle Mill Company the Exclusive
Use Of Thirtieth Street, for the
Erection Of a New Factory, Called
Forth an Elaborate Discussion by
Counsel for the Parties at Interest.
A Careful Opinion by City Solici-
tor Nesbitt--A New Ordinance to
be Drawn-The Ordinance of the
Peoples Telephone Company Re-
ferred to a Sub-Committee-Minor
Matters Considered.
Last evenings session of the Council
Committee on Ordinances was more
than usually important, and attracted
a considerable number of interested
gentlemen to the City Hall.
Most OF the time was given up to the
consideration Of the ordinance granting
the La Belle Iron Company the exclu-
siye right to use Thirtieth street for
the erection Of a new factory Iuilding,
and the resulting discussion was almost
entirely monopolized by the lawyers
representing the parties at interest.
In fact, the session was conspicuous
for the number OF prominent attorneys
present City Solicitor Nesbitt, A. j.
Clarke, George 3. Caldwell. J. J. Coniff,
w. J. w. COWden and E. z Robinson
were all present in the room during the
session, while City Engineer White
was also there to look after matters in
his line involved in the questions before
the house.
After the Committee had assembled
in a committee room and had disposed
of several little matters which will be
detailed elsewhere, the body adjourned
to the chamber Of the First Branch Of
Council, where the petition and ordi-
nance of the La Belle Company was TAX
en- up. The ordinance was read in full,
and Mr.. List making a motion to rec
ommeld the question was opened for
debate.
Mr.. C. A. Robinson, President of the
Mill Company. said the Company had
set forth substantially all it had to say
in the petition and ordinance, and gave
way to Mr.. Coniif. who represented the
executors of the Bender estate, which
owns one hundred feet square of land
at the southwest corner of McCOllOch
and Thirtieth streets. He said the own
ers of this property objected to the pro-
ceeding on the ground that it was not
legal and on other grounds. Mr.. Conitf
took his stand upon the Act of Feb. q,
1891. which gives the city the right,
as TO streets. TO alter, vacate or close
the same Provided. That
nothing herein contained shall affect
the rights Of abutting property owners
on such streets or alleys lie
proceeded to argue that as it was pro-
posed to close ard vacate Thirtieth
street. from Woods street east TO the
line of the alley in the rear of the
Bender property, the result would be 10
greatly damage the said property, and
that the property was abutting property
within the meaning OF the law. The
question of damages aside, Mr.. Conitf
said the city, under the law, had no
right whatever to pass any such ordl-
nance as was proposed, and lated his
reasons at length.
He was followed by Mr. Clarke for
the Mill Company. who held that MI.
Coniffs argument did not fit the case,
mainly for the reason that while the
Bender property abutted on the street,
it did not abutt on that portion pro-
posed to be closed. In his opinion there
could be no question of the right of
Council under proper circumstances,
TO vacate a street. and added that the
case pending was such proper one.
This was responded to by Mr.. Conitr,
who mainly argued on the interpreted
zion of the word "abutting" as applied
to the Bender case. and in closing he
raised the additional point that the Or
diuance did not Vacate the street, put
merely gave the La Belle Company the
right to exclusive use, which would be
illegal.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Coniff's re-
marks. CITY Solicitor Nesbitt was
called upon. He stated, at the outset,
that the city undoubtedly had right
tn vacate street or transfer its inter
est for valuable considerations, but he
thought the purpose of the transfer
sbould be specifically shown. lie then
read the following opinion, prelacihs
il with the remark that II had been
nropared before he had seen the ordl-
nance pending. and this fact WouId
make plain some language at the close
The opinion was as follows:
"T-nder act Of the Legislature OF ftoru-
airy a. 1891 found ON page lVl oil OUT our PoUi'
of laws and ordinances, tEe CltS may 20 ~
f1illy for q valuable considerations udI9lSt
~ he La Belle Company the interest,", -. oil
tbe civ i'm the portion in question oil lhiI-
THE above mentioned act provides that
/, shall not take effect until rauhed ny
Scunrji find no record Of such acton,
~, in order 10 be on the safe side. Council
sbo11Id bv ordinance ratity the act aIoTe-
said before taking any further acuou,s :.
"Whether the interest Oh tuc 80 80
ANYTHING more than mere rlSht 20 nave
m street for use as a pubic highway;
and me question as TO the ownership ol
Inc ground i'm case the city Ndcdlts' al no
questions which concern the cry s!AOe "a
conveyance would be or me city lH'eieS'
merely. without warranty. .,..,. o,t,,,.
Nav As 10 the question whether othGT
Dropertv owners in the same pIOck CouIu
recover damages from the c-ty upon tts
closing Of q portion or thc >tIttl oli w ~
fbfir property does not directly aput' OF
vbethtr AN Injunction might intervene.
our Supreme Court has ruled III case
very similar 10 the present one ina ~
junction will not lie; but upon the guy
fion of damages I'm such cases. our gu
,, ig' Court has not as Vet ruled. so w
I5onst look TO The courts of sister states III
order 10 determine wha, The law Is.
.VVe have one case very similar 10 Ine
present. Hale V. weston. ~ " \ II, a., 20.
t,ta CITY of Weston was sued lOr alloWlnS
- street TO become impassdpIe. Inc
rourt saws quoting W mara y. an
bridge. 3 Allen. ga: NO ACTON He -
10 recover damages Tor inc TT>i, IL hound