The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-07-13
GROWN STREET EXTENSION
SEVERAL BUSINESS MEN OB- JECT TO PLAN.


 Two Who Appeared in Favor of the
 Petition-Committe to Report Ad-
 verseIy-YaIe Fayors Permanent
 Pavement on Prospect Street.
 Favorable Report Expected-Com-
 mIttee Considers Other Business.
 The committee on streets of the board of aldermen. George V. Smith, chairman, held public hearing in city hall last evening for the consider ation of several petitions. Probably the petition of the greatest interest was that of Minotte E. Chatfield and others for the extension Of Crown street, to meet Union street near its junction with wooster street.
 James D. DeWell was the first speak CT to appear in faser of the petition. He said that State street was very mar row and congested at the end of Crown street and that the cutting through of this new street would re- 1 Ilieve this congestion. It is a great public necessity to have Crown street extended. There is not" he said, enough bridges over the cut and ought to be more" In regard to the matter of expense he asserted that the rail- road would have to pay one-half the cost of the bridge and that lower Crown street would pay the assessment for the rest of the work. The erection of the new Grown street engine house will make the extension even more neces- sary. It will have to come some time, and will not cost more now, thu later. General George H. Ford also appeared and favored the petition. He thought | that the proposed extension would be a great public benefit and that the plan should be carried out.
 John P. Augur, the State street whole sale merchant, was the first speaker to oppose the petition. He said that there was no great demand for it and that it would not open up any good property. | He further stated that it would cost him about $2,000 simply to- move his business from his present location, which would have to be abandoned, if the plan were carried out. c. E. Spencer & Co.,, through a rep- lresentative also opposed the petition. He said that there would be great ex- lpense and inconvenience to his firm to move and that it would cost them about $3,000 to do so. Furthermore he said Lhe could not see that there would be any advantage to it. He declared that he could not see any great congestion in, that locality and that they would 1 like to see more business, for there is room for more.
 Attorney E. P. Arvinef then presented remonstrance against the petition bearing the signatures of s. E. Spencer 6s O., ]. A. Spier, MI Zunder X Co.,, F. D. Grave, A. Rosenheimer, Sheehan & Groark, J. P. Augur, and Charles H. webb, who is the agent for the Sheffield property, through which the proposed extension would run. He stated that there was no real demand for the change.
 After the hearing the committee went into executive session to consider the matter and while, after the session no direct statement was made by any of the members of the committee, 1t was clearly intimated that the committee would report to the board of aldermen 1 that it was the opinion of the commit tee that the petitioners should be given permission to withdraw.
 The petition of Thomas G. Bennett ct al for permanent pavement on Pros- pect street, between Sachem and High land street was also considered by the committee, and was not opposed by anyone present. Treasurer T. L. Me- Clung, representing Yale university, which owns a considerable amount of the property fronting on Prospect street, said that Yale was favorable to the proposei improvement. Prof. Schwab and others also supported the measure as private property owners. It is prob able that the committee will report fav- orably on this petition.
 The committee also considered a num- Der of minor petitions on which it will report at the next meeting of the board l of aldermen. ... .