Court Opinion

ID: 9865174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:26:01.274481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:46.930301
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
This is another “wrong” decision, the effect of which is to further the purpose of rich and shrewd New York speculators, who, for a song, relatively considered, to- be sung slowly over an interminable period, sans tax levies for the interim, and in which a few local speculators join in the chorus, are to acquire the people’s brightest gem, their most resplendent diadem, the “Old Court House Square.” I will have none of it, and, if I were able, would thwart it. If there shall be those who are interested in my views on the general subject, not assumed, they are stated at length in a dissenting opinion in a previous review between the same parties. Hall v. Denver, 115 Colo. 538, 550, 177 P. (2d) 234, 240.
Relative to the present inquiry, the people, proceeding directly by a petition to that end, and allegedly signed by more than the required number of electors, not denied, sought to have an election held for the purpose of securing a popular determination of the vital question involved, which, as I conceive, article XX, Constitution, and article XVII, Denver City Charter, authorize. By resort to technicalities, emphasized by top-flight lawyers in that interest, and employed in the court’s opinion here as things of virtue, the speculators, those carrying the air not less than those supplying the overtones, once more have prevailed. .Having used my best efforts to prevent what I regard as an outrageous result, without avail, I depart for the nonce from the line of judges and join the ranks of the embattled protestors.