Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-05-30
Col, Nye Replies to an Insiuuation
in the Register.


editorial page of the Register have
long been a subject of just criticism
and regret with it's friends and patrons
as well as a source of qualification
and advantage to its enemies. The
character and reputation of the hum
blest citizen is not only vital to him
self, but in a sense is the property oil
th community in which he lives, ant
should not lbe carelessly reflected upon
Especially by one who has the respon-
sibilTty of an influential newspaper
The article, THAT Title" in a recent
issue of the Register, in which my
name is freely used, places me in 9
false light and is calculated to give er.
roneous and injurious impressions;
will not say designedly on the part oi
the writer, although he should be Civ
en- credit for sufficient knowledge and
command OF the English language to
bring him within the rule thai one is
presumed to intend the necessary eff
fects of his acts. One cannot do his
neighbor wrong and then turn about
and say-"Oh, didn't mean it," II
there is anything clear in the article
1t charges me with duphclty and insin-
autes that for hire l will espouse any
cause, howsoever wrong and take any
legal position however inconsistent ii
may be. 1t is in'timated by the Regis
ter, and as l understand by those in
terested with its proprietor in par
tlcular location for the new court
house that l am the hired attorney for
some person or persons desiring a DIFF
ferent location. This statement so
covertly made 1 explicitly deny. No
one has asked any advice or assistance
from me as to the location of the
court house, and / have no interest in
the subject excepting such as is held
by citizens generally; nor am l espec-
tally an advocate for or an opponent of
any par,lcular location. My remarks
before the Commissioners were en-
tirely voluntary.
In those remarks l ventured to ques-
tiOn the soundness of the position TAX
en- by the Register up to that time, viz:
That the title to the Ice Harbor lot
was in the city and as that lot was un-
questionably the only proper location
FOR the new court house, all that was
needed was the consent of the City
Council to the transfer of the property
to the county, it being repeatedly said
in argument for the location that the
property could be had for the asking;
or as stated in the Register in its issue
of the twentieth instant under the
head of THAT Title"
"The Legislature of the State of
Ohio has placed the title of the Ice
Harbor lot in the City and this was
considered by the Attorney General of
the United States to be good. 1t
would simply be necessary to secure
relief by having it changed to the
county and the city would not object"
By this l understand the editor to
mean that all that is required to give
the county a good title to this lot up
on which to erect a court house is a
transfer of the legal title supposed to
be vested in the city by the act of
March II, 1898, to the county.
1t was this subject that was under
discussion before the Commissioners,
and, following Mr.. Ellenwood, who
reading from the act, showed conclus-
lively that it does not even purport to
give the title of the property to the
city, much less to authorize the city to
convey it to the county, attempted to
state very briefly this view of the mat
ter. That by the dedication of the
land in question (knOwn as the Ice
Harbor lott by the Ohio Company, on
its Plan of the Town of Marietta, and
the subsequent adoption of this Plan
by the Ministerial Trustees as they
were required to do by the act of Feb
ruary 21, 1905, by which they were
and appointed, the inhab- |
itants of the City of Marietta and the |
owners of lots and lands within the |
city acquired vested rights and inter |
est in and to the perpetual use of this |
land according to such dedication: |
and that it is not in the power of the (
city authorities, even though they be |
by the Legislature of the |
State, to divert property from such
use in the manner proposed by the |
Register.
said nothing whatever about con-
demnation proceedings, and have new
er doubted the rights of the county or
any other public cOrpor ltion to appro-
Drlate the property in question to pub
lie use, where Provision has been made |
by law for that purpose, in the consti-
.utional manner. In fact it has always
leen my opinion since giving the sub
ect some study many years since, that
his is the only sure and effectual
method Of yacating it as public com
mons.
| presume that "the antlauated
tatements about the sacredness of the
commons" must have consisted in the
lse of the words dedicated" and "ded-
which doubtless occurred in
ny remarks, but in their legal or tech
iical sense only. ! agree with the ed