Obstruction Of Sidewalks

" An orainance relating to obstructing f treeta" requires the Common Council, on notiication of the tact, to " remove, or cauae to be emoved, any obatruction or encroachnient ipon any sidewalk, street, laue, or alley, ' vithin the bounds of the city." I Coming withm the purview of this , lance, notably, is the machine shop of Messrs. i"ripp & Price, on south side of Huron street vest. Beferring to this and otlier encroachraents j m the south line of the street in that localityi . he Common Council, some two or more ■eara ago, ordered a survey to be made to asertaiu just how much the shop and the fence iue adjoining, encroached upou and thus i tructed tlie side walk. The survey found this : hop tour f eet or more in the walk, and the ence line trom " four teet or more" down to a oint, in the public highway. In accordance with the ordiance and on the urvey, the commisaioner, as was quite proper, equired all the owners of property in this ricinity where the fence Unes were in the itreet, to remove them back upon the line as ndicated by the survey, wluch was don. The :ommissiouer, however, in the case of this ihop evaded or postponed its removal ))ack ïpon the designated line, on what then seenied in honorable and trustworthy assurance, on ;he part of this firm, that if the shop could be illowed to stand where it then was, and where t still remains, until the next spring (this was n the fall) they would remove the obstruc;ion, and replace the sidewalk, (now jagging jut into the street opposite this shop) as they ihould, during the coming sea9ou, put up a iew shop in place of the present unsightly, lilapidated and inconveuient building. Trusting, in good faith, to the btatements ind assurances then made by this tirm, the 3onimissioner, in a geuerous spirit of acjommodation- not to the public, however, but to these meu- allowed this obstructiou to remain standing, though it does, in part in the highway and in plain violation, as shown by surveys of an ordiuance of the Common Council. This advice of the Commissiouer was read about two years or nearly ago. Well, the then coming spring came and went, and another spring has come aud goue, and yet this obstruction does not budge an inch, but remains up to the present date, in status quo, au aunoyance to public pedeatrian travel, though quite as much to the convenience it not to the ideas of thftft and economy on the part of this tirm, enterpnsing in all tilines, though not notably so in the removal of obstructions froin the street, and especially in front of their own premises. Some months since a petition to the Common Council, respectably signed by citizens in the locality of this (re) obstruction, prayed that honorable body to have this shop of Messrs. Tripp & l'rice, designated in the petition as " a uuisance," removed out of the public highway, to the end that these parties should no longer be allowed to do business in part or in whole withiu the lmes of the street and so in plain violatiou of law. On the preseutation of this petition, the Common Council referred it to the street committee to ascertain and report the facts in the case. Ou careful and full examination, this committee made report that the machine shop of Messrs. Tripp & l'rice, as it now stands, encroaches upou and thus obstructs the highway. They also rcommended (?) a survey to be made, though, as is unilerstood, two surveys, the last conflrming the fust, have already been made. If so, why the need and expense of a third survey. Now the question is pertinent, and will intrude itself tor answer upon every one cognizaiit of the facta in this case, how long wil; our City Fathers, the appointed guardians aud chosen constructors of law and order in our city, allow a wealthy firin to do their business, in part or in whole, iu a public thoroughfare and on one of the principal avenues of our city and in plaiu violation of an ordinance which every friend of order and law should respect and to which, when amenable, he should yield a realy obedience 't To this also another question arises, how long can honorable and otherwise law-abiding citizens allow themselves, in the prosecution of their private business, to obstruct a public thoroughfare, and thereby compel every passer by on the sidewalk to turn out, tor the conveuience of this firm, from a thoroughfare or way to which every citizen has a right unquestioned in law ? How long ? And to this encroacliment upon the aidewalk caused by the obstruction of this shop of Messrs. Tripp & Price, the citizens in that locality have been compelled to submit now for two years or more, siuce the Common Council first took action to have it removed out of the street. Will the Council - to whom alone law-abidiug citizens must look for the removal of obstructions to travel in any public thoroughfare -allow this dilapidated shop of Messis. Tripp & Price, or any part of it, more or less, any longer to obstruct the sidewalk, as designated by survey, especially when it is to the anuoyance of travel and to the manifest depreciation of real estáte iu that localtty 't And all this notably in violation of an ordinauce and the requiremeuts of repeated surveys, which fair-mined aud honorable men are in honor and as good citizens bound to respect. These are questious which address themselves, no less to tüe members of this firm thau to the members of the Common Council, aud how shall they be answered 't Time will teil, and we wait ita revelations.