Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1909-03-05
THE CORPORATION COURT BILL.


gard to the bill providing for a sep
arate court for the city OF Bluefield
and which failed to pass Ia the leg
islature. We are glad to publish
this letter and hope that any citizen.
who feels an interest n the matter,
WI feel at liberty to exple ss him
self through the columns OF The
Leader
Citizen" was opposed to the
measure for the reason that he was
OF opinion that the city would have
to build a new city hall and court
house had the bill been passed. We
fully agree W, tn Citizen that this
Is an inopportune time for the city
OF Bluefeld to butt d a new city hall
However, we do not agree with him
in his conclusion that the passage OF
the bill would nece-s tate a con-
Struction of this building. 1t must
be conceded that it is only a matter
OF time until Blueffeld must erect
a new city hall and court room. The
present city hail, however, would
have been ample for all the necessi-
es of such court as was provided
for by the bill in question This
court would not have necessarily
FASTENED one day the erection of a
new city hal 1t is true that the
FEDERAL court, where a large num-
Der Of witnesses, petit and grand ju-
rors, and out-of-town officials and
cit zens were in attendance, found
our present court house insufficient
to properly accommodate the court.
But it should be remembered that
the court provided for by this bill,
would have had no grand juries to
iaontend with and no juries in long
Grim nal cases, it having no jurisdic-
lion IN felony cases. Our present
court room and offices are very little
Inferior to the court room and Offices
1t Princeton up until the recent i'm
)rovements made since the cours
house election, and it IS believed
hat the present accommodation
would have been all that was really
needed for such a court as was pro-
yided for in this bill.
But suppose it should have been
necessary to have erected at once
a new building In order to have
accommodated this court. Did "Cit-
zen ever consider the fact that it
osts the peop' e of B,uefield annual
y Ia travelling expenses, hotel bills.
oss of time and otherwi g almost
nough to pay for a new city hail?
We believe that an examina6 on of
ne matter would prove this to be an
'ecoIute fact. For instance, II often
occurs that business man from
3 uetteld is summoned to princeton
" witne and obliged to remain
attendance upon the court for
rays at time, and thus be away
rom his business and pay his own
'Hpensea This occurs to a great
many of our leading business men
md citizens every year, and we have
iothing to show for this outlay. If
his money and expense was used in
luilding City Hall We would have
'Ometh ng to show for It.
The court itself would have been
rachcally self sustaining and the
question of a court house would have
'cen a matter which could have
been dealt with as the occasion re-
luired and the financial ability of
he City to erect it would permit.
We think also that Citizen" is
mistaken in his supposition that
many OF the business men of Blue
.eld were not in favor of the cosrt
mere have been very few. indeed
70 east who have openly expressed
themselves as Mt IN favor OF f.. al
most every one who has discussed
has been heartily in favor of the
measure. 10 has been repeatedly
0gsas'ed that the covert influence
I'll killed this bin was our street
Hallway int..est The reason as
sue1 being hat the street Railway
ampany expect 10 extend their Ines
' Princeton and that n we had a
nat iu BueGe,d it would gr satly
ur,a The travel on the Street Rail
Fay We 3o not know that this Is
u" but we feel that the private
interests ~ the people connected
'th the street Railway Company
~'rad mr.. nave led them TO Oppose
> measure ~ 1ch great benefit 10
ao people ~ B'ucHa'd atsarge. We
1ra.niy favor tho extension OF the
stree. Railway Company line to
princeton sp1 believe that IT, wosld
b. of ,rra. benefit to the CITY ard
n,H rurtou should be- encourae-
' some co. we hope TO have the
5.Tosr Railway Inc 20 Princeton ana
Court for y ucGsld also.