The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1903-02-05
A PUBLIC MATTER.


unfortunate loss and no one can blame
him for trying 30 recover damages il
possible. Mr. Caswail however seems
TO feel that his claim is private mat
ter in which no one, and especially the
editor of the REVIEW, has right to
express an opinion. He forgets that
not against the city council in their
personal capacity but against the tax
payers of Denison. AS such it is prop
erly a subject for public or private dis
cussion. This fact--that the claim is
against the city as d whole-paces it
as matter of general concern and
whereas it might be considered impre-
tinant and unjustifiable to discuss it
We're it a personal matter it is not and
the Rev EW or any other TAX payer
has perfect right to discuss the ma
ter in all its bearings.
We have therefore no apologies to
offer for discussing the question either
publicly or privately.
This amount involved. perhaps $500,
is comparatively a small one, but
neither this fact nor personal sympathy
should influence The council to part
with public funds unless there is clear
warrant in law for SO doing.
We have been given to understand
by members of the city council that
Mr.. Caswell gave verbal consent TO the
location OF the Waroasse building next
his premises. No doubt this was done
flom commendable desire to be nc.
commodating, TO further The upbuild-
ing of Dealson, but nevertheless the
question rises if Mr.. Caswell should
not be bound by the consequences of
consent. 1t is almost certain that had
he lot dole so the building would not
have been located where it was The
question whether this consent, if given,
and for this we have only the word of
members of the CITY council, does not
constitute waiver of any damage that
might have been incurred. Mr. Cas-
well knew OF should have known that
the juxtaposion of such a building so
close to his own added an additional
risk to his own property. We have not
heard that he asked or received any
guarantee or protection either from the
owner of the building or the city. This
being the case it would appear, if he
gave his consent, that he accepted the
risk himself and must abide by the con-
sequences. No one compelled Mr.. Cas-
well to give his consent; he was a free
agent, and while it appears hard, it
would seem that, legally. land this is
the only light in which the council has
either the right or the power to consider
the question: the city, by this consent,
if given, was absolved from all claims
for damages, so far as Mr.. Caswell is
concerned. Had the damage occurred
to someone who had not given his con-
sent the question of damages would be
on different basis.
Should any person consent to the
erection of Fourth of July stand in
the street abutting his property, he
must know that it would increase the
risk o. fire. When he allows the cree
ton OF the stand, he accepts the risk
II the fire actually takes place can he
claim damages from the city: In order
to establish legal claim for damages
one must not only show that a damage
was sustained but that there was no
contributory negligence, and that the
injured party used due precaution TO
prevent the circumstances which made
damage possible. 1t would appear, if
We are correctly informed, that MI
Caswell not only did nothing to prevent
the circumstances which made the in
jury to his building possible, but that
he actually gave his consent TO them.
Under such circumstances. while we
s3mpathize with Mr.. Caswpll in his
loss, while it would be proper for a pub
lie subscription to be raised for his ben
eft we do not think The council should
award any damages out of the already
depleted public funds until the liability
of the city is clearly proven
In discussing this question the Re-
view denias that IL has any rarSopal
animus; were the claim made by any
other party the facts would remain the
same. AS tax payers and as citizens We
lave right to discuss such questions;
as newspaper it is ourdnty to do so.
Board Studies Court Houses