Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1898-03-05

centralized somewhere. think II
would I've possible to move them to the
lake front"
These are the views held by Judge |
4. G.. Kohlsaat:
II believe in rcscrving the lake front
for park. 1t is the only place access
lille 10y all the people. without the
lake front Chicago would he no better
than an inland town. Nothing Is too
valuable to he reserved for the benefit
of the people.
II am i'll favor of keeping the river
for Il harbor. II would greatly benefit
the West Side ii there were liked
bridges placed over 1t. hut doubt III
this lsucfit would I've cuualcd by the
damage that would he done. Commerce
takes care of itself. hut those improve
ments which bcautify city and help
the people as a whole. do not take care
of themselves. Michigan avenue. which
Is now valuable for hotel purposes.
would he greatly changed in character
If the Lake Front park were given up"
Adolph Moses favored the Lake
Front park as a breathing ground for
the people. but was comparatively non
committal on the subject of the river
and outer harbor.
II am. as a citizen" said Mr.. Moses.
.'in favor of establishing the Lake
Front park and making It n beauty
spot. as we have none available down.
town here-no breathing spot for the
poor. and all the parks are miles away.
The comparatively inaccessible loca-
ton of our parks, in my opinion. makes
such a place IA this Lake Front park
all the more desirable. A common.
such as that of Boston. would be u
blessing 10 the public and to the chill
,lren of the poor.
Il do not believe In utilizing the lake
front for revenue. even If consldcra.
bile increase of revenue could liz
brought into the city treasury by so do.
ing.
II can give little opinion rs to some
of the other questions. as ! believe
them to require more study than have
been able to afford them before rem
tiering a competent answer. Congress
however. has control over the Chicago
River. and may give consent to- State ol
city to fill up or build permancn
bridges. As to vested rlghts--well
there are none. 80 far as they NAV In
sist on the rivers remaining n river
or course. difficult questions of Law
would arise over property whose own
crship Is bur,lened with the pOssibilit!
of governmental action in filling up tn
river. but the vested rights cannot u
seriously harmed II the stream Is con
vcr,ed into u road or street. Ii woul,
bc different II 1t were intended to ,lr.
up the river ana place nothing In It
stead. but .he substitution of u road o
street for 1t would make the ease on
of ''damnum abslue injurla"
without injury. and without remedy Il
law.
1.-THE lake-front hari,or. In my opir
ion. would be largely u question of IL
cheering"
II. y. Higinbotliam returned answer
to the interrogatlons rs follows:
II. tailnk the Lake Front Par
should be preserved and that territOr
should be reserved solely for this Dul
pose.
80. No. II should not be devoted I
revenue purposes.
-. No outer lake front aarbc..
my opinion. There II u natural harbC
at the Calumet. National funds viii 1
used To Improve this haven. The bnil'
ing Of lake front haibor and the lev!
ing Of charges for Its use on shipplil
interests for the advantage Of the cit
would result in driving trade 10 q,
Calumet. where the same advantag,
TO lake trade would he offered for litti
or nothing by reason Of the cOinpar
lively small expenditure needed Il
permanent improvements. A lo'
might thus result to the city should q
outer lake front harbOr he constructe
for revenue purposes.
~. I do not believe an outer In
Dor practicable In view OF present co
,ktiOns.
~. The difficulties In nccomplishii
such change would be very great.
would mean n shifting of the lntercs
of the entire city. u shifting Of r.
estate values which cannot now be u
ticipaied. Engineering problems ~
also involved Which could not spe.
Of with authority.
81. The Chicago River should rsma
as It Is. II should he deepened. wide
I'll and improved In every manner ~
sible. II should never he relcgated
the position of n mere link to the di''i
age canal. The river has been n mo
important factor IN the growth OF q
cago. The interests nj stake anu Z
volume of trade now carried tliroui
this channel are too great to admit o!
shifting of trade centtrs. No fX
bridges. Improve the river!
~. Damages would certainly have
bc paid property-owners In the eve
OF Closing the river. There would
no right In rendering their proper
holdings practically ,yaluele,s witho
proper compensation.
-. The transfer Of railway term
ais or facilities to the lake front in VIZ
of prevailing conditions would be pr
ticsilly impossible
~ most certainly believe In La
Front park and think the entire ST.
of territory extending from Randol
street 10 Park row should he devo'
4, this nuruosp" declared John V. II