Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-06-30
SEITZ ANSWERS in
"HARDSCRABBLE" CASE
[Continucd from First Page.I

TContinucd from First Page.
years has been on the city official map
and in public use"
City Solicitor Seitz filed his answer
late this afternoon and in 1t the whole
contention of the petitioners is an
swered although in conclusion the city
takes the position that the proceeding
is irregular in that the petitioners
should have taken the matter into
court by excepting to the report of
the viewers instead of by petitioninS
for the dismissal of the viewers.
Street Never Opened
After generally denying the al
legations of the petitions Mr. Seitz
vigorously declares that Front street
in the section in question was never
Off iaially or legally opened. The sec
ton was laid out and the street marx
ed on the map, by the 1853 commls-
sion he points out, and this plan
shows that the street extended to low
water mark.
Inasmuch as the city never carried
out this plan, it is within its right,
the solicitor sets forth, 10 follow out
the lines laid down by the commission
by exercising the right of eminent
domain and that the present proceed
ings are based on this ground. On
this subject City Solicitor Seitz says:
Front street was laid out, es-
tablished and marked upon the
city official plan by certain COM
mission appointed under and by
virtue of the act of assembly en-
titled, "a supplement to an act
incorporating the city of Harris
burg, in the county of Dauphin,"
approved April 9th, 1863, P. l..
III, which plan was duly ratified
and confirmed and made valid by
the act of assembly entitled, "A
further supplement to the act in
cooperating the city of Harris
burg, in the county of Dauphin,
passed April 9Th, 1869" approved
January 2. 1871. Copies of said
plan, with the accompanying eX-
| planatory report of said commits
sion, were filed in the office of
the prothonotary of the county of
Dauphin, in the office of the re-
corder of deeds in and for said
county, and also among the rec
ords of the Common Council OF
said city; that said plan, so rati-
fed and confirmed and made
valid, with the accompanying re-
port, shows that said Front street
was laid out to low water mark
| of the Susquehanna river; that no
change in the lines of said Front
| street, as duOplcu pS ilC SoiN
commission of 1869 and con-
frmed by the legislature in 1871,
has been made or authorized, and
that said street is now being
| opened between the points desig
! mated in accordance with the said
plan; that the properties belong
ing to said petitioners are with
in the lines of said street, and are,
with others, the subject of con-
| demnation under the power of
eminent domain lawfully confer
red upon and exercised by the
city of Harrisburg, in the proceed
ings which the petitioners are now
endeavoring to have set aside.
One Witness Heard To-day
| ONLY one witness was heard by the
viewers to-day. This was E. G.. Slay-
baugh, 1130 North Front street, who
thinks his property is worth $500
He based this on what someone told
him he ought to get If the property
wasn't molested. His foot frontage
value he fixed at 5000 per foot, based
on the sale of the Watts property al
Forster and Front streets.
! The question of whether or not Q
witness may testify after he has looked
into the records of sales, etc, instead
of his personal knowledge of trans
actions at the time of their occurrence
was ruled out when the viewers re-
fused to permit James Dinger to testi-
| fy.
| The city will open its side of the
case tomorrow at 10 O'Clock.