The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1901-05-10
THE NEW DEPOT.


But in regard to the new depot
that is being talked about, when Mr..
G. T. Hughf has occupied nearly
three columns Of a newspaper to
present the railroads proposition in
its most favorable aspect, we may
fairly conclude that the l. & n. Co,
have had a full, fair and exhaustive
hearing.
We agree with him that it is purely
a business proposition, and should
be discussed without passion 'or
prejudice; other than the natural
prejudice proposition so unreason-
able may excite.
Mr.. Hughes denies that the
proposition carries with it the sug-
gestion that the railroad company
seeks to have the city bear part
of the expense of constructing the
proposed station; and admits that
the city not only should not do
that, but under the charter and their
oaths have not the power to accede
to such a demand.
But that is exactly what the prop
0sition does mean, howbeit it may
require second or third reading to
find it out.
The railroad company's PROPOSE
ton is conditioned upon the city
doing certain things, acquiring GER
tain lands, assuming uncertain
liabilities, which the city could
have no wish or reason on earth
to do except for the tuilding
of the new passenger station; these
expenses, therefore, incurred for the
sake of new passenger station, are,
to all intents and purposes contri-
button to the building of that
station.
The Louisville & Nashville Rail-
road Co., gifted, versed and expert
enced in evading and defeating the
law of the land, may have so
adroitly worded their proposition as
that the Board of Aldermen could
accomplish by indirection what,
under the charter of the city, and
their oaths, they have no right to
accede to-" but they cannot by any
sharp practice or technical plead
ings change the logic of their
proposition or escape the fair,
reasonable, sensible conclusions to
be drawn therefrom.
IF the CITY, for the safety of its
citizens, should tunnel one Of its
streets TO pass under the railroad
tracks, an appropriation would be
made for that purpose. But ia that
the purpose for which it is being
asked or considered? If the con.
venience of the public called for two
new streets from High to South
Main, one north and one south OF
the railroad tracks, the city would
draw on it's street budget to pay fol-
the same. But is there any present
need or demand for such new
streets?
If, for the safety of the citizen, the
city should close High street, the
property damage would be paid fol
out of special fund provided fol
that purpose. But is there any
citizen asking that protection? Ism
it, rather, the railroad company
seeking protection from damage
suits; seeking to avoid the worry
and delay of uncoupling trains
seeking more yard room; seeking
better and easier facilities for hand
ling their already enormous anC
constantly increasing business?
There is all sophistry and no logic
in the contention that the city il
not asked "to bear apart" of the con
struction of the proposed station
The proposition is plainly this. 1
you [the city, will do certain things
we will build a new passenger sta
: ton. Your reason for mourning
these expenses, is to get a new pas
seuger station. Our promise and re
ward to you, is new passenger sta
ton. No thought or idea of tunnel.
ing South Main street, except "fo
new depot" No th)ught or idea o
suggestion of closing High or Gardel
streets, except for a new depot.
Every proposition made, every ex
pense incurred, is for the understood
, and expressed purpose of a new
., depot. The plain purpose an
, meaning of the contract az every
! body understands it; a meaning an,
= understanding no single member n
, the Board could or would deny;
true meaning, and one which, no
only Mr.. Hughes but other member
Of the bar have said, "the Board a
! Aldermen, under the charter Of tn
! city. and their oaths, have no powe
1 to accede to-"
Its quite evident, from his article
that Mr.. Hughes does not apnFeciat