The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-10-18
GROWN ST, STIRS
 HOT DISCUSSION
(Continued from First Page.)

P9Isdtlon SnOulQ De increased. He said that while they attempted to get the best advice they could on the matter, there was no one on that board who was a competent real estate judge and that it was a political body. He said he had obtained a price for a State street building that was not to be compared with the Bishop property and that was greater than what the Bishops were offered by the compensa- tion board. He said in answer to the question direct that he did consider that the property was worth S55, 900.
 MT. Pollock, representing the Ma tional Biscuit company, spoke on the increase in prices of rents in that vi- cinity in the past few years and stated that while his company was on the other side of the street they had re- ceived notice of a raise of nearly double what they had been paying for the past four years. He said that he would be willing to pay s2,000 a year rent for one of the Bishop stores with the assurance of trackage facilities. Andrew G. Smith of the New Haven Window Shade company held that the figures of the bureau of compensation were very much below what the actual cost of building such @ building even at the time of its construction. If I owned that property" said he, "the city would have to pay to-day more than the Bishops are asking" Mir. Eccle of the Spencer company spoke in favor of the compromise. At- torney Coyle asked him upon his con- clusion whether or not 1t was true that his company had been in a plan for the erection of a building of the same dimensions as the Bishop build ing within 300 feet of 1t with a guar antee by three firms going into it of ] ten year rent which was to bring in q return of 10 per cent. on the invest ment of $9O,0O0? He replied that the firm had To the question as to wheth- CT CT not the reason 1t had failed had been because the other two firms would not make the ten year guarantee, he said that it was his recollection that 1t had been impossible to secure the land.
 R. H. sheehan of the sheehan com pany thought that the price was fair and reasonable.
 Ex-Alderman Donovan declared that the price should be determined by figuring out the value of the retal brought in on a 10 per cent. basis. If the building brought in a rental of $5,0OO a year he thought it was fairly worth $50,00O. He then de- clared that the monied men of the city evaded part of their taxation because their property was not assessed at full value and in the course of these re- marks he made the statement that the Winchester company paid taxation on about $2O00,000 while It's plant was worth S20,000,000. So he held that the Bishops had their property in on the tax list at less than the actual value.
 For the opposition to the compro- mise the case was mainly stated by Attorneys Charles Coy1e and Birney Futile. MT. Coyle opened by insist ing that there was no strength in the argument of the men who ap- peared in favor of the compromise because the failure to agree upon a price held up the extension work as there Is no legal reason, he stated, why the city cannot go on with the work. He quoted from the charter to show that the title to the property had passed to the city when it had placed the amount of money awarded to the Bishops in the hands of the treasurer and that the appeal of the Bishops affected only the price to be paid by the city and not the sale of the land He declared that the only reason for the delay in the progress of the work was dilatoriness in hay ing the officials of the city push the matter
 Next he contended that the bureau of compensation had no right, accord ing to decisions handed down by many corporation counsels of the city, to take into account future benefits in determining the value of property to be so condemned so that the increase In rents in the past year or so was not legally a factor In determining the price to be paid
 Then he questioned the legality ot the present committee acting on the matter at all stating that he had g doubt In his mind whether 1t could act on the matter as the bureau of com pensation report had been approved by the court of common council and the mayor and had been appealed from by the Bishops and that the matter wat now with the courts and the committed could not legally compromise the mat. ter.
 Attorney Futile followed a. similar line of argument He stated that thu property had been bought, according to his belief, by the Bishops not as z permanent investment, but with thu expectation of selling it to the city ant that they had bought after 1t wa known that the city wanted to .ge the land. Even with, this knowledge current he said they only paid $2S,001 for it.
 John T. Sloan took exception to thi statement that the land was bough after it was known that the city want ed it.
 Several other citizens declared tha they were opposed to paying to th' Bishops any more money than tn bureau of compensation had awarded and that they would prefer to have tn matter determined by the court rathe
 than do so.
 The committee in executive seseiol
 failed to decide upon it's report in tn , matter. Alderman Loos, one of tn members of the committee, stated tha he would not be ready to announce hi