Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1905-05-04
IN FAVOR OF
yACATING

WaY, which was laid out IN l1SO, DUR
ing the last hundred years has been
successively wiped out of existence by
the inroads of the river and the action
of the viewers was anticipated by
many persons as the logical sequence.
Nevertheless vacation was vigorously
opposed by persons owning property
ahutting and residents on the lower
end of the Borough on Market and
Mahoning streets, who found it con-
venient to use the old highway.
The fate of the cid road has been
trembling in the balance since last
February when the final view was
made. Two previous dates were fixed
for holding the hearing, but on neith-
er occasion were all the viewers on
hand. Tuesday morning, the time set
for an adjourned meeting, the entire
board of viewers was present and the
hearing proceeded. The meeting was
held in the Grand Jury room which
with witnesses and others interested
was pretty we'll filled.
r. s. zimmerman who with James
Scarlet representing the township, W was
present and examined the witnesses.
Hon. H. NJ. Hinckley and f. S. Gear
hart appeared for the property owners
and others opposed to vacation. NAH
onlng township was represented by
Supervisors Z. L. White and James
Heckendorn.
The position taken by the township
was that the old road was useless and
the parallel road
leading down the river from North
cumberland street answered practically
all purposes. 1t was also held in sup
port of the proposition that If vacated
the portion of the thoroughfsre lying
between the creeks mouth and town,
which belongs to the borough, would
revert to the owners of lots abutting
and VINO would still possess private
right of way that would enable them
to reach their land.
A good many witnesses were ex-
amined. all with one exception being
on the side opposing vacation.
The first witness was Amos Vastine,
Chairman of the Streets and Bridges
Committee of Council. Mr.. Vastine
held that to vacate the river road
would be to deprive Water street,
that extends to the creeks mouth. of
an outlet, which was proposition that
the Borough would never submit to.
He held that to restore the road would
not prove burdensome. The portion OF
the road lying in the Borough had
been practically no expense for years
past. As for bridging the creek the
bridge washed away was lying in the
just below its site, but If this
was too badly damaged for use, the
Borough for 500 would sell one of
the canal bridges, which would answer
at that spot.
Robert Morris, one of the land own
ers, was the next witness. He has
known the road for fifty years-forty
years ago he hauled limestone over 1T.
In addition to himself others who own
land abutting on the river road are:
Lau bach, Blizzard, Mrs.
Lizzie Fisher and W. K. Holloway.
If the road were vacated and the land
it occupies permitted to revert to the
owners each property owner would be
at the mercy of the ones above him
and could be shut in or permitted to
use the private right of way only at
their pleasure. Besides private road
was open to objections, as all the ex-
pense of keeping it in repair would
have to be borne by the owners OF land
abutting. For the property owners to
get onto their lots from Northumber-
land street he regarded it in face of
such obstacles as the railroad, the can
al and Mahoning creek as wholly i'm
Even such route would
make a parallel road necessary along
the lots to enable the owners to get
upon their land without trespassinR.
He considered the river road necessary
not only for the accommodation OF
land owners, but for the general pub
lie also. Ii il we're vacated the resi-
dents of the lower end of Market and
Mahoning streets who have business
down the river, would be obliged to
make a detour taking in Mill and
streets adding at
least a mile to the distance. He ad.
mitted that the ice and water had
washed the width of several roads
away, that the last road located now
lies out in the river; that to restore
the road new ground would have to be
purchased, which would mean a reloca-
ton of the road, and that to insure
permanency retaining wall would
have to be built. He was not prepar-
ed to give any estimate as to cost.
Dan NJ. Curry was called to testify.
He agreed with previous witnesses as
to the necessity of the road to afford
permanent outlet for properties abut-
ting. The old bridge, he believed. is
too badly twisted aud bent to be much
use and to attempt to get it back upon
the abutments would cost more than
new one, which he thought might be
installed for some $500.
Chief Burgess W. G. Pursel was the
next witness. He took the view that
if the river road were vacated much
valuable property would be shut of
and would depTeciate i'll value. Be
sizes the old road is necessary to ac-
commodate the general public.
NJ. S. Bond, the Ohulaskey truck
man, offered his testimony, as a down