The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-11-15
THEY STOP IT.
Vinewood Road No Longer APP
prOpriating City Property.

After consultation yesterday afternoon
the Vinewood park railway people decided
that it would be the wisest policy to cease
using the paving material which the city
claims to own and the city officials were
notified that Street Commissioner Griggs'
warning would be respected. 1t was there
fore decided that no Injunction suit should
be commenced. The VineWood manage
ment at once commenced to haul in new
brick for paving their right of way on
Van Buren, street.
1t is supposed that the Vinewood com
panys plan is to go before the city coun-
Gil next Monday night and get permission
to use all the brick it wants and also nave
the council make it a present of wat
lieves that it has the council under its
thumb and can get, anything it wants
simply by asking for 1t.
Mayor Parker said this morning: 1.-THE
city has need for all the brick it can get
1t is a mistake TO suppose that these brick
are of no especial value to We are
buying thousands of brick every year. 1
don't know whether the Vinewood man
agement has given up the attempt for
are simply waiting to get an expression
from the council"
Ninewood company decided to obey. my no
tice TO quit using our material in spite
of the declaration of Mr.. Ward. l DON'T
know what will be done next. but sup
pose it will come before the council. That
is the place where the question of what
the city wants to do will be settled"
City Attorney James F. McCabe and
most of the members of the city council
returned today from Leavenworth, and in
speaking of the controversy in regard to
the Vinewood company, Mr.. McCabe said .
4 never gave the Vinewood company
authority to use any brick from the pave
ments to pave their right of way. If Mr..
Ward states that he was acting under my
authority he was mistaken. The question
of whether or not he had authority to Csc
the material was referred TO Assistant
City Attorney Ralston, and Mr.. Ralston
said that the paving material belonged
either to the city at large or TO the prop
erty holders. Mr.. Ward did not ask NE
for authority to use the brick If he had
done so l might have given it to him. be-
cause the city railway was in two in
stances allowed to use material from the
sidered that precedent which 1 was justi-
fed in following.
me get mad at somebody for stopping this
work while 1 was gone. / won't get mixed
up in that fight. I don't hold Street Com
missioner Griggs responsible for trying to
usurp my authority, because the matter
came uD while l was gone. and l think
Mr.. Griggs acted all right The only thing
I object to is the inference which Mr.
Griggs gives that he first discovered what
was going on after had left town. He
knew all about it all the time, and knew
that the Vinewood company was using
brick to pave their right of way which
they dug out of the pavement
Il believe that the city ought to have
the brick. 1t seems to me that the inten-
ton of the ordinance is that the railways
Tght Of way spS Because p the city
railway was allowed TO violate this ortli-
nance does not Justify. violation by the
Xinewood company. I don't know that
the city is any more under obligations to
pave the Vinewood right of way on the
paved streets than it is on the unpaved
streets.
Il have forbidden the vinewood COM
pany hauling brick from one block to an
other. have also tried to get Mr.. Griggs
to haul away the city's brick as fast as
possible. Two loads of brick on West
Seventh street were stolen a few nights
ago. I don't know who stole ;hem. In
spector EnEle stated that the bricks had
been taken"
The two instances which City Engineer
| McCabe reports of the city railway using
old material from the street for paving
their right of way were on West Sixth
between Topeka avenue and West, where
7O0c square yards were taken up and re-
placed and 1900 square yards on East
Fourth street. between Kansas avenue and
the depot. At current rates for brick
pavement. the pavement on West Sixth
street would have cost the company ss0o
and the pavement on East Fourth would
have cost 50, 400. The city railway saved
this because nobody happened to think
| that it had no right to use the material.
There is no reason why the city should
not protect itself since the error is now
clearly understood