Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1902-08-07
THE PORCH QUESTION.

months, and has created mucn leellhg
in the community.
As heretofore noted in the REGIS
TER, the town council has ordered a
number of property owners to remove
or alter their porches where these
structures project more than four feet,
the limit fixed by a town ordinance
some years ago. At the last meeting
of the council petition signed by
very large proportion of the property
owners and taxpayers of the town, and
by representative citizens generally
was presented, praying that the or
dinance be not enforced, as it would
occasion much loss and inconvenience
to the people. AS matter of fact,
the petition was not enthusiastically
received by the council, but action
was finally postponed until next Mon
day night. when the entire subject
will again be taken up.
1t is now stated by certain men,
bers of the council that the petition
will be disregarded at the meeting on
Monday and that the order against
the porches will be enforced regard
less of any argument or showing that
may be made. 1t hardly seems pos
sible that representative Of the peo-
pie should take such a position in ad-
vance, but previous action Of men,
bers Of the council adds readily to the
belief that this course may be pur-
sued. Decision in advance goes far
toward clinching the belief now held
by many persons that personal spite
is at the bottom Of the whole affair
and that public position is being used
to crafty private prejudice,
The town will be vastly the loser
if the council persists in the course it
has begun. If it should succeed IN
its efforts and cause the destruction Of
the porcbes it has picked out, the
council would at best cause disfg-
urement of some of the handsomest
homes in our town and create back
set in improvements that would be a
disadvantage from which we would
not recover in years.
But the most serious matter to the
taxpayers at large is the expensive
litigation that the corporation will be
plunged into. Of course, none of the
owners of property will submit to the
destruction of their premises without
a fight in the courts. They will take
legal steps to protect their rights, and
the corporate authorities will have to
employ special counsel to represent the
town. Special counsel will cost a
good deal of money-just how much
no one can foretell. This expendi-
ture has already been commenced, a
Martinsburg attorney having been en-
ployed by members of the council to
help the matter on. 1t is said, how
ever, that this was not done by order
of the council, and it may mean either
of these two things: That individual
members Of the council expect to pay
the bill, or that they propose to take
it upon themselves to employ lawyers
without the tormality of getting the
consent ofthe council. We doubt if the
first proposition will hold good, and
we are certain that the latter will be
very expensive thing for the town.
If, as has been suggested, tie cor
poration authorities proceed to carry
out their orders and summarily cut
down the porches, they will make the
town liable to some heavy suits for
damages. Here will be more expen-
sive litigation, with the certainty that
the taxpayers would have to foot some
big bills.
Unless attorneys are retained,
another feature of the affair must be
considered: Interpretation of the law
by persons who know little or nothing
Of it, in secret conclave where they are
guided by their own wishes only, will
not go very far in the courts, and
storebox opinions will be rudely sha-
ken by competent lawyers. The coun-
Gil has decided that all porches built
since 1897 must be made to comply
with the law. The date of 1897 is
not the date when the ordinance was
passed, but the time when the ordi-
nances were compiled anew and print
ed. AS matter of fact, the ordinance
was enacted some years before this
date, and if it is to be enforced from
the time of its passage it may destroy
half the porches in town. 1t is said
that the committee appointed 10 meas
ure porches did not make a full re-