Omaha daily bee., 1899-06-15

OF New York or Philadelphia. There are
none in Chicago. We believed the safety
OF the public would be guaranteed IL the
vaduct we're ended at Marcy street instead
OF Leavenworth.
but the city engineer and the council
said that the city did not want viaduct
with an approach on each side, that the
gulch must be entirely bridged. When the
city continued to insist, we said that we will
concede the building of such viaduct II
you will make some concessions to us.
Hence this proposition,
what is It? 1t proposes to dispose Of an
controversy and to make safe all crossings
needed by the city for years TO come. Your
city engineer was not easy to deal with. He
has the Rosewater characteristic OF not
wanting to surrender at any time. And he
did not surrender. So II we can come to an
agreement on the plans as drawn up by him,
you can put limit on the time to be taken
in the construction OF the viaduct. And the
man who says that the roads are simply try
ing to gain time says something very foolish.
Tomorrow structural iron is to go up IS per
ton, so that the delay from today until to-
morrow has cost the roads $4,000 or $4,000
on the viaduct. The legal talent of the rail-
roads was cunning enough to delay the con-
struction Of the viadw,t for year in the
courts IL delay were the object sought"
Explains Proposed Agreement.
General Manderson then went through the
clauses of the proposed agreement, explain
ing each. He enumerated the viaducts and
subways the roads propose to build and
maintain including the construction Of
viaduct at Twenty fourth street,
within three years and one at Ban
croft street within five years. When he
came to the paragraph touching the viaduct
on Boulevard street, he gave it an entirely
different Interpretation from that placed
upon it by the park board. The roads agree
according to a careful reading OF the propo-
sition and General Manderson's interpreta-
tion thereof, to build the viaduct when the
boulevard is made one worthy the name. II
the board does not intend literally to pave
the street the roads, General Manderson
said. would construct the viaduct as soon as
the street is actually permanently i'm
proved driveway, even If it were made so
within the next six months.
In regard to the clause touching the en-
| forcement of the ordinance forbidding the
| blockading of streets with cars, General
| Manderson also read the agreement in an
| entirely new way. The roads, he Claimed,
| do not want the ordinance repealed as had
| been stated. The Union Pacific wished to
| be released from compliance with the section
| recurring 1t to maintain forty-foot road
| across the approach to It's bridge.
| The vacation of Sixth street, against
| which Lininger e Metcalf had protested
| General Henderson declared would not be
asked at all unless the roads could reach
an agreement with that firm to give them
another outlet from their place of business.
Otherwise the damages incident to the clos
| ing of the street, which, by the terms OF
| the agreement, are to be assumed by the
| roads in every case, would be enormous.
| Thus. the protesting firm was assured an
outlet from its place Of business and would
not be injured. Martha street. which the
agreement proposes shall be vacated the
| attorney declared, was of no more use to
the city, considering the many passages
around it, than a fifth wheel on wagon.
| The proposed closing Of Seventeenth
street the speaker said. would never be
attempted in violation of the order or the
| federal court granted in the Streitz case.
| But the city had not been party to the
Injunction and would never be restrained
from exercising it's proper police jurisdic-
ton in the opening and closing of streets
| And here. again. the roads would have to
bear the resulting damages Unless Paxton
| G. Vierling could be furnished satisfactory
| road to and from the foundry and the virtual
confscation of the plant avoided the roads
would never think Of asking the vacation
of the street, entailng, as 1t would, near
| 81 900 900 damages.
AS to the objections that the city council
| should not bind the city for the future,
General Manderson granted that the coun-
| Gil could not legally control the action OF
! any future council and that In several
years from now the agreement could be
altered or absolutely abrogated by another
| council. The agreement would not be
legal obligation, but only a moral one, sim
ply an evidence of good faith and means
of restoring peace between the roads and
the community.
BY the provision that the city was TO
dismiss all claims now pending against the
| two roads the attorney said that the slate
| was to be wiped clean. Many OF the claims
were unjust and others had been wiped out
| by the operation OF the statute OF limita-
tions OF the $40 900 which had been claimed
| to be owing the city there was scarcely
$4,000 worthy of consideration.
states the Other Side.
When General Manderson had concluded
James H. Mcintosh took the other side. He
said that not one of General ManderSon 5
statements could not be answered. That the
! citizens and the attorneys for the roads
were there for common purpose was true
so far as General Manderson the individual
was concerned. but was not as to Manderson
the attorney for the road. These peace-lov-
ing roads had taken the matter into the
courts and had gone from the state supreme
court to the United States supreme court,
denying the right of the city to compel the
building of viaducts.
Judge Baldwin interrupted the speaker to
say that the roads had never questioned the
right Of the city to order the construction OF
viaducts and that the case taken to the su-
preme court was not over that question at
all Mr.. Mcintosh replied that Judge Bald
win had never read the cases to which he
referred.
The roads now came with tears in their
eyes, Mr.. Mcintosh continued, asking for
peace for a price. They asked concessions
for doing what the courts had said they
must do. They asked the council to do what
it had no authority to do. The basic argu-
ment OF General Manderson's speech had
been that the matter should be settled now
and forever. That principle was wrong
Every difficulty should be settled as 1t arose
without the hands of the council being tied
by the action OF former councils years be-
fore. Changing conditions would dictate diff
ferent steps. But one question was before