Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1899-01-13

statement has been publicly denied ~
Mr.. Frank A. Sherman, who was county
attorney in 1884. Mr.. Sherman's Il denial
was printed over his own signaturs '
here below. 5@ NJ III Ss
Mr.. Sherman's Letter. %
The Capital Of last evening represents
me as having advised the board Of sup-
ervisors while county attorney in 1854,
that they had the indisputable right 81
selling or disposing Of the court house
square, or otherwise diverting II from
its originally intended use. 3$s3 i$isji ssi
Such was not the fact. The legality
of the proposed alienation Of the public
square was never officially referred "a {
me. My recollection of the matter Ill
that near the end Of the September
session resolution was presented pro
viding for the su omission at the next
election of proposal 10 bond the
county in the sum Of $3.50, 900 for the
purpose of erecting court house and
Jail within one block Of the river and
to sell the public square and apply tho
proceeds to wiping out the debt so
created. The county attorney was in-s
structed so prepared the proper from
for Submission. This resolution 49,
hurriedly passed without extended dis.
cussion and was not ubmitted TO mo
for opinion rs to its legality. After the
board had adjourned, however soma
discussion was had among certain
members, and / was asked upon that
point. l distinctly remember making
examination Of the records and author
tiles and giving as my opinion that
the board did not possess that power.
I stated that the placing on record ofsj
the original plat by the commissioners,
showing the public streets, alleys
squares, etc, and subsequent sales ofg'
lots, constituted . dedication to the
general public which precluded any &
alienation without the unanimous con-.
sent Of the public; that the reservati q
by the commissioners Of the pnbl{e
square for, the purpose Of erecting
court house, iail or other public build
thereon was not inconsistent with IT.
use by the public as public suuar B
I think said that while II might Il siIssi 4
within power to erects court house
other building else where, vet it as
Inv firm opinion that the square its0a1
could not be diverted to other JhaI1l
public uses. I had at that time heax
it stated that lots facing the III 49, ~
had besn sold at higher pric.. M sgji,slsa
t;rst commission era mon their =
tation that the court house va. to5
erected there. This. Ii sronad
o,nara - : aoa;nst the cor, nAv n = Il i1
nel from locating the conrt M. w sI ss;si
where a.thonoh 4 did not then AZ nress s
,os;tive on;n;on. hacau.e not y, fs,c;.n, Il
" copnizant Of the facts.
The above was orally stated "a cer.
tain Of the supervisors. / do not remen,-
ber whom, and was after the resolution I
- ~. hoard had heen nass.d .nd W. 4
board had adjourned. No subseauent
neet;no Of the board was h.ld hafnra
election. hnt the nroposit;on VA. .n,,-
.o;tted and overwhelminplv defa. t.d 1
bv the neon,e
(s;oned, FRANK A. SHrRxAr.s ss.s1
A. the time this question WIS s,,bm;t-s
tod IN 1894 taxes were not nearlv Il
b;rh az thew are now. and it was nrn.
nosed to spend only about one.third of
the sum that ia now being proposed
only small part of the sum then
o,'.a ho;,o <o- +ha n,,roh ..a -