Free trader-journal and Ottawa fair dealer. (Ottawa, Ill.) 1920-1927, 1921-10-06
COUNCIL ASKED TO.
LEAD OPPOSITION N.
THEATER FEUD CASE.
DEFENDANTS IN CULLEN MAN
DAMUS SUIT HOLD CONFER
ENcE IN CITY CHAMBERS. FOL
WING PRESENTATION OF
COMMUNICATION FROM B. S.
JORDAN.

G. s, pCullen's mandamus suit TO
compel B. s. Jordan, owner of the
Orpheum, to remove an iron canopy
from In front of his theater found It's
way into the council chambers last
night and prcclpitated discussions
lasting the greater part Of an hour,
The "feud' which had its inception
at the time the Orpheum was moved
from the Cullen & Gowen building on
La Sale street to the present loca'
ton was fought through the courts
once before. Mr.. Jordan winning the
final verdict For long while there
were no new Developments. Thea,
after the council had been warned In
a communication from Mr.. Cullen that
the presence OF the canopy and pro-
truding steps of the Orphoum consti'
tuted an infraction of the city ordi-
nances and an encroachment on the
streets belonging to the people, Mr.,
Cullen went into the Circuit Court
and filed his mandamus suit. naming
the city the individual members OF
the council and Mr. Jordan as defead.
ants. The object of the proceedings
was to compel the mayor and commits
sioners 10 order Mr. Jordan to re-
move the canopy and the encroaching
steps.
Argus Over Defense.
asst nights discussion OF the pend
ing proceedings had to do with the
employment OF counsel to defend the
city in the suit Judge r. d. Mills,
representing Mr. jordan, suggested to
the councilman that as long as Mr..
Jordan had erected the canopy under
a special order of a preceding admin
istraton IL was the city's duty TO
take leading part In defending the
mandamus by proving its right to reg
ulate such matters.
Mayor Weeks opposed the idea that
II was the city's business to defend
the suit, on the grounds that 1t was
only nominally interested in the pro
ceedinGs. which were aimed almos,
exclusively at Mr. Jordan and his
play house Commissioners Palmer,
Sticklen, Dousherty and Bradley took
an opposite view Of that assumed by
the mayor and announced themselves
as fayoring employment OF special
counsel to fight the case as each Of
fetal was named as a defendant in
the Cullen charges. 1t was generally
agreed that City Attorney II, l.. Rich |
olson would be greatly embarrassed
by being compelled to defend the city
because OF his close association with |
Mr. Cullen in the law business, and !
for that reason he was practically |
eliminated as counsel for the city in |
defense of the mandamus proceed |
Jugs.
Launched by Communication.
The arguments Pre- anu con were !
launched after Clerk Curtis had read !
a communication from Mr. Jordan ask
ing the city to take an active part |
in the trial of the suit. Among others
held as "encroacher9 ana liable to
serious interference in event the
court should rule in favor of the pc
titioner, Mr. Cullen is himself named
In Mr. Jordan's communication
which says;
ITO the Mayor and Commissioners
of the City Of Ottawa, Illinois.
Gentlemen:
THE undersigned has been sued
Jointly with the City Of Ottawa and
yourselves individually in the Circuit
Court of La Sale County, Illinois,
which suit involves questions OF vast
importance to the City Of Ottawa anu
to many of the citizens and property
owners thereof This suit raises the
question whether or not an ordinance
of the City of Ottawa duly enacted
providing for the regulations of avn
IN. l,Cth oF bonpiDC variety and
OF permanent awnings, is good and
valid ordinance under the powers
given to the city council and under
which ordinance permanent awnings
have been constructed at a large ex-
pense by several property owners IN
the city.
This suit further raises the ques'
ton of whether or not the general
policy Of the City of Ottawa and OF
all of its citizens for more than iiity
600 years last past to permit the
erection of buildings at vast expense
in the city with steps, stairways, bat
comics or other purprestures extend
ing for some distances over sidewalks !
or streets, is lawful The undersign-
ed is advised by his counsel that the
general policy Of the mayor and city
councils of the city for more than fifty
t50) years acquiesced in by every citi-
zen of the city, including the com G
plainant in this suit, for more than D.,
fifty 900 years, permitting the ex-
penditure of large sums Of money in t
the erecting Of buildings in that sit t
uation permanently and equitably ,
estops action on the part of the city
or any individual citizen thereof to }
remove such purpresture. r
However, the question as raised in 7
the City of Ottawa has never been =
definitely settled by the courts Of last .
resort pertaining to the City of OF L
tawa especially. And the undersign- t
ed is of the opinion that inasmuch as \
not only himself but the following
citizens or property owners are also
interested in the same question that
definite action should BE- taken By the
council
1.-THE persons interested generally
In the City of Ottawa in this question i
are: 6
King & Hamilton factory. 9
5"First National Bank building.
E &c liftou Hotel huiIdinp