Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-09-23

The effect of the decision is that all
OF the twenty-five owners of property
affected will have to so into common
pleas court on an appeal from the
amounts allowed by the board of view
ers and that this will necessitate just
twenty-five separate hearings.
Property owners who didn't partici-
pate in the litigation. but who may
elave awaited the result of the court
decision. likewise lose out, as the ex-
ceptions heard stand as test cases
Up to Property Owners
Just how the court feels upon the
question of the one eXcepton-that OF
the citys liahility-which 1t does not
pass upon, was a matter of conjecture
to-day among attorneys who eagerly
perused the opinion. The result OF
the next step, which is now up to the
: property owners, will be eagerly
watched.
The question of filing sufficient Sc
curity which has been raised by the
exceptants may be thrashed out furth-
er when the appeals are heard. Attor-
neys, however. contend that the time
for raising this question was durins
the hearing before the viewers, that
the objection of the property owners
at the time should have been matter
of legal record. The presumption ac-
cording to some lawyers. is that the
failure to do so. could be construed
lack of action.
Can Proceed Mt Once
So far as the elimination OF the
Hardscrabble district is concerned. the
city can proceed with the raZlng or the
buildings as soon as it files the neces-
sary bonds.
Just when this will be done is a
matter of conjecture although City So
licitor D. S. Seitz declared to-day that
they will probably be filed as soon as
they can he prepared
CITY Solicitor Seitz incidentally was
the recipient of showers of congratu-
lations from city officials and fellow
ATTORNEYS. Lawyers generally consider
it a wonderful victory for the city and
its legal adviser. A reporter discov-
cred him happily reading the opinion
to-day
Well" said he. 'it has been true
enough win for the city, and While
it has been a tremendous fight for
nearly two years, 1 don't think the
city faltered for a moment-or doubt
did we the result
BENJAMIN NJ. Mead. of Mead & Mead,
one of the leading law firms which
helped represent the Hardscra oole
property owners said he would be
unable to talk intelligently on what
the exceptants' next step will be until
he confers with some of his COL
leagues.
End of Two-ycar Fight
"Mr. Frank Mead, the Junior mem
ber of the firm who was particularly
active in this proceeding is out of town
to-day. George r. Barnett might be
able to talk to you on the subject as
haven't vet had a chance to see the
opinion" said Mr.. Mead.
Mr.. Barnett declined to talk at all.
Nothing TO say for publication, ne
said shortly.
While the question of removing
Hardscrabble is part of the city's his
tory of years, the present battle really
began August II, 1914, when Councll
passed an ordinance authorizing the
opening OF Front street to low water
mark between Herr and Calder streets
The properties in question front on the
west side of the street and combine
-to form the only unsightly gap in the
great stretch of river front wall ana
steps extending throughout the length
J of the city.
At the request of City Sohcltor
Seitz the Dauphin county court on
February 0, 1915, appointed Paul G.
Smith, Karl Steward and James u.
SALESMAN a board of viewers to assess
benefits and damages.
The viewers report allowed dam
ages amounting to S1o7,1s9 to the
property owners in question, S43,0IO.So
of which was assessed IN peheIls
against the properties on the eastern
side of the street. The remaining
s62,72370 is to be paid by the munich
pality.
While the whole city has awaited
with interest the decision in the case
in view of the future improvement OF
the river front, the question has been
of especial import to hundreds OF ca
noeists and motorboatmen in view OF
the fact that the two great boating pa
yilions-A. P. Dintaman's and ii. D.
Berriers-are included in the con-
demned district.
Razing of these buildings Will mean
that adequate boathouse faclltles
must be provided in some way to &C
commodate these hundreds of river
enthusiasts. 1t is believed, however,
that vacation of the properties will not
be required before next Spring. 49,.
Following is Judge McCarrells S
opinion:
The Opinion
ION October Is, 1874. Getty Digest,
D. 1850 the city of Harrisburg atter
the passage of the Act of May 23,
1874, relating to government OF cl.ies
of the third class, passed an ordin-
ance approving and ratifying plan
which had been prepared under the
direction of said city and which in
dicated the location of Front street
between the points named in the or
dinance here in question as being ex-
actly as above stated. There can be
no successful dispute as to the loca-
ton of Front street upon the official
map of the city. At the time of the
passage of the ordinance of August IL,
1914, all the ground indicated upon
the official map for the location of
Front street had not been formally
thrown open for public use, a por-
ton thereof only along the eastern
line of Front street having been used
for public purposes. The purpose of
the ordinance of August II, 1914, was
to formally and officially throw open
to the public for highway purposes all
the land indicated by the official map
for the location of Front street. Upon
this ground some buildings had been
erected before the passage of the Act
and the land had been used for private
purposes Other buildings or inn
'provements were afterwards made
This fact gave rise to claims for dam
ages by the owners of these lands
and the buildings and Improvements
erected thereon. BY the Act of Janu-
airy 2, 1871, p. L. 1856, it is provid-
ed:-
That no compensation shall be
made or allowed to any person
or persons for houses or other
buildings erected or built by any
person or persons, on any of the
Ill