Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1899-10-28
". n. EISENDRATH
Tells an Eagle Reporter that
He Occupies Two City
Streets for $500
a Year.

w. n. Elstendrath. who occupies
SangamOn street and 35 feet Of DIX
street with his big six.stOry brick build
Ing. lias had the gall to turn tlra prop
erty covering the street into the Leath.
er Trust.
A reporter for The Eagle asked Mr..
Eisentlrath the other day how he eX.
cused this.
Because I pay money for the priv.
llege to the city for it?"
"How much?" asked the reporter.
"Fivc hundred dollars u year," was
the reply.
Five hundred dollars u year for Oc-
cupying two streets ana making I'M
possible the costly new subway under
the Northwestern tracks Mt SangamOn
street!
",rO whom do you pay this $500, Mr..
EisendrathY' asked the reporter.
''To the City Comptroller" answered
Mr.. Eisendrath.
Well! WE'LL!
How about this, Mr. Comptroller.
Can two streets be sold to the EIsen-
drath trust for $500 u year?
Let us hear.
II no, under what law?
%S
Schucnneman Il Co. pay $5.2S taxes
on their big coal yard ut ElstOn avenue
and Division street. Who Is RESPONSE
BILE for this?
Walker l. Oakley's tannery, on El-
ston avenue, covers public alley, for
which the city Of Chicago gets no com.
pensatlon whatever.
Some one Mt the City Hall was set
tied with for this, as 1t is rumored that
the sum OF $1,000 was put up at one
time to quiet an investigation into 1t.
The Union Hide and Leather Com.
pany, or its successor, the Lake Tan
ming Company, occupy thirty.flve feet
| of the river for distance Of 500 feet
south Of Division street.
The Gas Trust occupies the river for
thirty-hve feet for 1000 feet south Of
Division street.
Eisendrath's tannery IL out thirty
feet ON Dix street, and thirty.fve feet
on SangamOn street.
The Philip Rim Company. ut Crosby
and Division streets, occupy the side
walks with their lumber and do not pay
the city for the room.
The Artesian Stone and Lime Com
pany Ii said to have fenced In Ohio
street at Campbell avenue, and alsC
most Of Campbell avenue. 1t advertises
In the Champion of Graft.
The Mayor has vetoed an order OF
the Council granting permission to Q
manufacturing industry to trespass
upon an alley. The Mayor vetoed the
order upon the ground that property
owners abutting had not consented
and that no compensation to the mu
nicipality had been provided.
The Mayors veto Is proper. The rea
sons assigned are not proper. Tht
Mayor should have told the Common
Council bluntly that In a recent deci
sion of the Supreme Court 1t was pro
vided that the Council has 10 author
ity to permit trespass upon the city,
highways. The decision is c.ean-cu
and unequlvOcal. No compromise Il
suggested. Compensation or no com
pensatlOn. consent of property owners
or no such consent, the Council u
without authority to give a grant o
the kind.
The Supreme Court said: '"There Il
nothing in any portion of the genera
incorporation acts which cOnfers pow
er on the municipality to devOting ,
street or any part Of 1t to a mere pri
vaie use."
%eA
Aldermen, attention.! How Is It tina
whole streets are taken up by some
firms? The Elsendrath tannery occu
pies the foot OF Sangamon street at thu
North Branch; the Philadelphia anC