Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1917-01-18 MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL TtUM8tA'I' JANUARY 180 1917,CALLED TO ORDER BY OR 7 30 P.M. Members present: F. G. Erfert, F+ H. N►hgrrton, E L. Brady, C. F. Filer, E. C. Romfh, L. T. Highleyman, C. Hefty. POLICE DEPARTMENT SUSPENSION7OF PATROLMAN D. L. KING Mr. W. B. Moore, City 0lerk, Dear Sir: - I was discharged think it was fair. I believe that I to notify you that I now ask "Miami, Fla. Jan. 16, 1917. A by Mayor Henderson on Monday January 16, 1917, and I do not am entitled to a hearing before the city council and this is for such hearing. Yours truly, D. L. King." Mr. Cason: The oharter provides that the mayor shall have the right to suspend any officer of the city provided he shall submit to oounoil at its next meeting the Cause for such suspension and oounoil shall inquire into the oase at a time to be set and if the majority sustain the charge of the mayor, the officer shall be dismissed. Mayor Henderson: I suspended Mr. King on the testimony of two ladies who are stopping in the apartment house just across Avenue B from the White Temple. They saw him strike a drunken mqn last Sunday afternoon, without oauee. The ladies said the man didn't offer any resistanoe and they will oome down to testify at any time. Mr. Hefty: One of the patrolman was talking to me today and said he hsd arrested this sale man four times. He must be a man the police have todeal with. I don't know just what information the mayor has but we don't want to make a laughing stook of our fords. Mr. Romfh: The police oommissioner has not investigated this. The mayor has the right to suspend him. Mr. Highleyman: I don't see why we can't go ahead and dispose of thie. Mr. King has his witnesses here and I don't see any reason why we oan't hear his side. At HEFTY Patrolman E.?J. Starling: I have arrested thie same man three Brundage arrest him once. The seoond time, possibly the first me and I had to olub him to stop him. That was on llth Street. and brought him around and had to hit him again. Mr. Erfert: With the nippers on? Mr. Styling: Yes, sir. He was drunk on the streets. Mr. Filer: I would like to get at the beginnong of this. Mr. Erfert: This is the beginning right now. Mr. Starling: I don't know how many times he has been arrested altogether. Mr Romfh: Did you see King arrest him? Starling: No, sir. Mr. Highleyman: What size man is he? Mr. Starling: Good size man, around 170. Mr. Romfh: What did be do to you before you struck him? Mr. S: He hit at me. He begged me to turn him loose at first and then started to pull an jerk and eaid if I didn't turn him loose he would fight and I told him to come on. I had by the right arm and he struck at me with his left hand and when he did ' struck him wit a club, not hard enough to knock him down. Mr. Romfh: Was he bloodied up in this instance? I never had any particular trouble with him after that time. Mr. S: I didn't es him His name is Baker. Mr. Hefty: Didn't he forfeit his bond next morning? times time, I got and helped offioer he put in to sorap the nipper* on him him h Mr. Moore: His case was continued and he appeared the next morning and was fined $10 or 20 days after the judge heard the evidence. Mr. Hefty I don't think we should make a mark of our patrolmen if we want them to go after these men. Mr. Romfh: A patrolman eh_uldn't use a club to cause bodily harm. Mr. Hefty: We must give our patrolmen some protection. Mr Filer: Before any action is taken I think I should have some information. All I have I got indirectly when I was sick in bed. What action the mayor took, he must have had . some information. I am a personal friend of Mr. King and will help him, but I don't think the mayor would take rash aotion. Mayor Henderson: Last Monday morning these two ladies called on me and said they were of to the place where the arrest was made, infvront of their house, and heard everything tb transpired. She said the officer called an automobile and asked this man to get..in_and_b the officer he didn't want to ride but would walk and the officer stuck him beoaueeh49. get in the oar. I oame along in a few minutes and the man was as bloody.** a_b*efi it was neoeeaary to scrub out the oar. The ladies eay he didn't resist thc,offiger at all, just a ais he would rather walk than ride down. Theyebre within fifteen ,e7tpof.. the man. I accepted he.r testimony in prefexenoe to Mr. Eing!a and removed him. • ose ®. told wouldn't ,-r it c • Patrolman Borthrup: Mr. Hefty: Mr. Northrup, do you know the man who Was arreetsdI A:osi.tic:. Q: Have you had trouble with him? A: No, sir. He worked for me abOut-n OUr years on the F E 0 extebsion. He is an ecoellent hand to work; When he is sober he is a very good man but when drunk is one of the biggest tools I ever'aaw,' no reason in him in any shape, form or fashion. Mr. Romfh: You didn't see this affair? A: No, sir, I know nothing of the affair between he and Mr. King,- simply know the man. Mr. Hefty: You ever have occasion to :_rrest him: A; No, sir, not since 1 have been connected with the police department. Mr. Brundage had to bit him here at one time. He is very unruly when drunk and no one oan reason with him except to knook him down and drag him out like a hog. Mr. King: I had the man here a while ago but he left and said he would be baok. Mr. Northrup: I expect the police reoords will show he has been arrested at least a dozen times for being drunk. Mr. Erfert: He is a man who can't be arrested without being hit? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Erfert: I have known King a long time and I never eaw himnuse undue power or burte foroe but usually persuasion - more than I would use, and I don't believe he used undue force to rrest this man. He resisted arrest, so what oan a policeman do? &appose a man should turn around and take a policeman's billy or gun and kills him? I believe we should protect our policemen unless they use undue force. This man with the record he has I think should be hit. Mr. Filer: I reoommended Mr King for reappointment but I want to go on record that it is absooutely unnecessary to go to work and beat a mans brains out to bring him to jail because he is drunk. I have associated, and been_around and had experience and it is often the manner how you approach a man. When a man is under the influence of liquor he has not his mental faoilities and if you approach him wrong his fighting blood will show like a beast. Don't beat a man tocbath to get him to jail. Mr. Romfh: I happened to be in New York last summer during the street oar strike and saw the reserves oalled out. I saw. the polioe rooked and a street oar destroyed, but no clubs were used, yet they protected the people and I didn't see anyone beaten up. I think it is unfortunate for the individual who gets drunk but there shoal be some way of handling them without beating them. The policeman, don't appear to be damaged to any at all and I can't see why, because the man showed fight, he should be hit. The mayor 1 and commissioner are handling the police foroe and I don't feel like taking on myself the responsibility of reinstating a man they think should be off the foroe. I would not attempt to handle such affairs,- it is in the mayor's hands He is oharged with preserving the peace, good order and morals of the pity and should know who should and: who should not serve. The mayor has made an investigation and these ladies state he simply would not get in a haok - therevae no fights.. Mr. Hefty: The same man has been arrested ten or twlve times. Mr. Romfh: Then he is unfortunate and should have consideration. Mr. Filer: I heard of this three days ago. I am not recommending Mr. King's diemiseal, an' if the mayor has acquainted himself with the facts he knows more than I do. He must have investigated and I will have to support the mayor. Mr. Highleyman: I am one of the last men who. would stand for undue violence but would take into oonsideration the fact that this man has a bad oharaoter. He has been hit on two previous occasions, as shown by testimony here to night. There must be a reason for that. This is the third time. On the other hand, what I know of Mr. King, he has had a good record on the force. &o far as I know he has had no demerits against ham. Further I saw a petition and some of the best men of Miami have signed it recommending Mr.King. Taking all this into consideration and the fact that he is in good sanding with the merchants of the city and the men who live along his beat, and this man has a bad character and has been arrested tepeatedly and when drunk is rough, it seems to me it is hardly treating Mr. King fairly. The evidence shows he is borne out by previous oases. Tbere is no question but at times a policeman has to use force,- if not he would not be armed, and the arms are not for ornaments. 'Here is a man who has a good record, his livelihood depends on his job and I suppose he has a family - he arrests a desperate oharaoter and we throw him out of a job. I think there must have been some reason. These ladies no doubt saw this but may not have been close enough. Women are rather warm hearted and dislike to see anyone struok, but they didn't know the character of the man. When you take a shackled tan who wants to fight, he is one a little tap on his head will bring to his senses. Mr. Wharton: How badly was he hurt? Sometimes a little bruise will bleed very. much. He appeared here in oourt and I would like to ask the chief how badly he was hurt. Chief of Police: There was just a little break, enough to bleed, in his head. Mr. Highleyman: Mr. King did you knock him down? Mr. King: No, sir, I didn't stun him at all. Mr. Brady. There is a great deal of differenoe between the testimonyoof a couple of tender hearted women and the experience of an officer. No one, who lives in this apartmen house could possibly tell what was done on the White Temple corner. He was told to get into the oar add tried to hit the policeman with hie,left hand and with a little tap on t head he got in the par. I don't want anything todo with the polioe fords, and ;I.t$ink the mayor ie doing as near right as he can for the pity,- I have the greatest :regard for mayor Henderson, but there are two sides to every question. I have seen too many 1 drunks hauled up to this station who have been bit on the head with clubs wawa can't enourage that, we don't want policemen to beat people up, but from what Irma told I think the patrolman knew better than two Women on the poroe of, the Avoldale-aprtment Chief Whitman: Only two men have been hit since I have been ohief- :.of .piioe, one mein" it. required three to put in jail and this is the second. 9,;7 Mr. Wharton: I would be the last to stand for brutaility .en' i►s :f from the evidence the man was not hurt Owl skinned a j.ittle. I move that Mr. King be reinstated on' _14k ,o e: t4;tie; call the vote was: Erfsrt. yee;..VII: yea; Bes't ,. :P„01, 4r Mr. Filer: Before the vote is taken I want to say I d,Oi't kill Mt, Erfert: That shows how human nature rUneJ The commissioner him notwithstanding he voted against it. • Mr. Filer' I have the greatest oonfidenoe in our mayor and if the oity.' Mr. Erfert: I would not support no an I know is wrong against mayor er president of the UnitedbStates. a ekeds the mayo*v.toAaiastat 4.. :.' 44:t; _offit r .a •;'' I would not support him Go another•man, mayor, lord Mr. Filer: I am under no obligation to the mayor but I have that much oonhidenoe in him. RAILROAD CROSSING AND BRIDGES GUARDS AND SIGNALS TO PROTECT The clerk read from the report of the Grand Jury, in which it is suggested that the city of Miami Plaoe a policeman at the south approach to Avenue D temporary bridge• and guard rails at eaoh end That Avenue D Extension be widened at the point at whioh it Drosses the main tacks of the 1 E 0 Ry. That automatic alarms be plaped•At Avenue D.extension crossing; at Buena Vista Crossing (Biscayne Drive) and 20th Street crossing. Moved by E. C. Romfh, seconded by L. T. Hoghleyman, that the mayor appoint a traffic man /j,-- for Avenue D bridge and that the streer department install the necessary guard rails. Motion oarried. Mr. Road : I notice people jumping on the bridges when they are about half closed With a policeman there for a month or two I believe that would be stopped. I don't think it -- necessary to pass an ordinance, just caution the people. I think the matter of alarms o -the oroseings a good suggestion and ask that the attorney take it up with the railroad company immediately. I believe all these matters can be included in one motion, to oompl the suggestions of the grand jury. • Mr. Wharton: It is not feasible to put guard rails on bridges that are fool proof. The only thing we can do is to put up is a signal or warning. If we put a guard there heavy to stop an automobile, it can't be handled from the center of the bridge. It must be something light so long as there is a signal there. • Mr. Romfh: I think a policeman on one end of the bridges would hold the people down. Whe 1,r we get the new bridges we will not need them. Mr. Wharton: It is a good idea to put a policeman at the south end of D bridge, but as f ."fool proof guard rails it is not feasible. FLAG ON CITY HALL The clerk read a request from Mrs. Lucia C. Romfh, ohairman of the flag committee of. D A R. that a flag be ppacd on the oity hall. • On motion duly made and carried, the matter was referred to the committeeman on publio buildings with power to act., BAY FRONT SUIT OF CITY VS F E 0 RAILWAY COMPANY TO RECOVER BETWEEN 2nd & ?th STREETS Mr. Mitohell D. Price read the following: *Miami, Fla. January 18, 1917.= To the Honorable City Council, City of Miami, Florida. Gentlemen: In some manner unknown to the undersigned, a oopy of the letter which was writt� as a member of the firm of Prioe and Eyles, a copy of which was mailed to the mayor of t city and one to each member of the city oounoil, has been obtained by the Miami Metropol and published by that paper. The letter was of a private nature, not intended for public+ and was a letter the publication of which was calculated to be of injury to the pity and to the Florida East Coast Railway Company, all of which was well known by the Miami Metropolis at the time it published said article. Yet said paper, notwithstanding the fa that it has posed as a sworn enemy of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, and the earnest exponent of the people's rights, greedily seized upon said private letter and published same, and sinoe the date of the publioation thereof has seen fit to publish several editorials and articles referring thereto. • The various articles and editorials whioh have appeared in said paper are gro misleading, and are not founded upon fact. One of the recitals which appears in said,. pap is to the effect that Mr. A, J. Rose,, at he time he tiled his suit against the Flooida Coast Railway Company, sued to recover the riparian rights, and that we afterwards rtruo the olause relating to riparian rights from his declaration.Asa , Witter of fact, when M Rose filed his suit, the only paper filed by him is set forthin hied verbs ,ae follows: ' IN THE :0XRCUIT.. COURT OF . THE ELEVENTH JUDICIA CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN.IND FOR DADS COUNTY. , ' City of Miami, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida, Plaintiff vs Florida East Coast Railway Company, Florida Corpiration. Defendant. The clerk of the circuit 0 above entitled Dauer, retuynab fp a help • ith nough » by myself ion, f benefit ly et A210 rryii••••r • Nothing is said statement ie doatained. tv;`-elic r';ithethe =ii waS Ou' Yig„ 0400 `' ii Terminal Dook property or park psoperty, .er whether he wWOU tf:'to`"recover t#ie depot. on Ninth Street, or other property belonging to the F1orida'Ee,it . Oouet ''Railiajr, Conipainy., No deolaration was ever filed by him in said cause. " . The rules oompiled"for practice in the Circuit. Lour te of "`the State -df -Florida, : * ,the Supreme Court of the State of.Florida, publiabed'in 1913, referring to a otione in ejectment, provide as follows: "The writ of summons shall be issued to the persons inpoaaeesion,'arid to all perscne olaiming adversely or entitled to defend the possession of the property alaisied. The property shailbe described in a statement to be filed with the praeoipe with a'reason- able certainty, and the amount olaimed on account of means profits and of whom olaimed shall also be stated therein. A oopy of this statement shall be annexed to the writ and shall be served with it." At the time the praeoipe for summons ad respondendum was filed by Mr. Rose, no deacripti+ln of the propertyme filed as provided for by rule 83 established by the supreme court of the state of Florida as aforesaid. The railroad oompany immediately took advantag of this oversight and filed a speoial appearance whioheaid speoial appearanoe, leaving off the formal heading and signatures of counsel, as is follows, to wit: "Comes now the defendant and enters a special appearanoe herein for the purpose of moving to quash each the writ and sevioe herein upon the following grounds: '1st. No statement oontaining a description of the property involved in this suit was filed with the praeoipe for summons herein. '8nd. No statement of the amount olaimed on account of means profits and of whom such profits are claimed, was filed with auoh praeoipe.. '3rd. No oopy of any statement containing a d-:soription of the property involved in this suit and of the amount olaimed on account of mesne profits and d whom olaimed, was annexed to the writ of summons herein, either at the time such writ was delivered to the sheriff of Dade County, Florida, for servioe thereof, nor at the time of servioe thereof upon this defendant. 'This appearance is entered for no other purpose than that above stated. 'Wherefore this defendant asks that each the writ and servioe herein be quashed at th costa of the plaintiff.' Mr. Rose, after filing his original praeoipe for summons ad respondendum, endeavored to amend said summons. When our firm, together with the firm of Hudson, Wolfe and Cason, was employed to represent the city in said ejeotment suit, we examined said files and oame to the oonolueion that the contention of the railroad company to the effect that said suit had not been properly instituted, was well founded, and that the amendment to the summons did not cure the defects therein, and thereupon Mr. Cason, as oity attorney, dismissed the suit filed originally by the said A. J. Rose and a new suit was filed by Hudson, Wolfe and Cason joined by the firm of Price & Eylea. When the new suit was instituted a description of the property was filed with and as a part of the praeoipe for eummons.ad respondendum. This desoription bounded the land by metes and bounds, and contained the of ause " together with all riparian rights incident and appurtenant thereto" The deolaration which was filed in the case oontained the same clause. The clause remained in said deolaration until after the Circuit Court had announced to counsel in the case that he was going to direct a verdiot for the oity of Miami for that portion of the property whioh was awarded to the city extending that portion recovered by the oity to the waters edge, but eliminating from his instruotion anything oonoerning riparian rights. It was at this time, in order that the ommisaion of the clause referring to.riparian rights from the judge's oharge directing a specific verdict, should not be oonstrued against the city and operate as res adjudioata, and be oouatrued to be a finding on behalf if the circuit oourt that the riparian rights belonged to the Florida East Coast Railway Company, that the attorneys representing the city, knowing that the proper way to teat the. extent of the riparian rights appurtenant to said property was by an action other than an action V ejeotment, by consent of all parties and with the oonsent of the oourt, struck said clause, " together with all riparian rights from the deolaration. Had it been allowed to remain therein, it is possible that the verdict and judgment omitting the olauee, might have been construed to be a verdiot for the railroad company as to riparian rights, and as we at that time believed that the oity was reoovering all that it could possibly recover in an action of ejectment, we deemed it advisable to strike said clause. The oity council did not give the attorneys representing the oity permission to strike said olauee, because the oity council were not pr4sent; in fact no officer of the oity of Miami attended the trial during its progress exoepting'oertain ones who under under subpoena to testify as witnesses, and who were not membere of the oity oounoil. Mr. H. G. Ralston, formerly a member of the oity oounoil but who, according to our reoolleotion, had resigned just previous to the trial of this case, was in attendance part of the time that the case was on trial. Our suggestions to the effect that if the oity did recover the terminal dock ;property that it would have to.pay so muoh.therefor in the nature of betterment proceed- ings, to wit, the value of the improvements, whioh according to the estimates, would run to some three or four hundred thousand dollars, and that said property would not be worth that much for park purposes, and that the railroad would likely divert its shipments which consist mainly of lumber produoed largely in the southern end of Dade County, Florida, from Miami to Knight's Key or Key West, have been greatly oritioised. This matter was merely the expression of a private view and not of a legal matter, and it is immaterial to the undersigned as to whether or not the views on this subjeot are.00nourred in by any other person or not. It has nothing to do with,the merits of the case so far as the right of reoovery.is oonoerned. The undersigned has bean engaged in the practice of law for about twenty one years, and has always been able to fully satiety the oliente.whom he..has•represented,whether as individuals or private corporations, and in this case'believes that be'oauld fully satisfy by the services whioh he has and would have rendered'in ae14 oauee, the members•of the oity oounoil as well as that portion of the publio who .are;endowe4 with intelligence and honestly seeking for the truth. ant there is in every oommunity.a pertain peroentage of long eared individuals, whose chief ooaupat-ion in life.e wagging their caudal appendages and exercising their vocal organs who '.bould.not.-be plaaeedythe efforts of the chief jug of the supreme court of the United Stator of Awerioa .'if he _►ere .employed. to represent the interests of the public. In view of the .faot ghat eo :mugh.;,49;�e+ea iafaOtt oases due largely to mierepreeont tion $ao414:WgPnetroa are oontiined in our own minde that<<.a �appeal;y of t fob expense to the city, and, that- tbe:-oty probably be advieablet fox ana.; ow) ,oarxied,to Abe arisen',pver: the regolt of :end in view`of the fact a no •v< record in the oaee has been rediiae% to, writing, and .the;roauae toan'.bo,earrie'd'upby atti cep�b1e lawyer as effeotualiy ao b .another. {`.- . • I^f the oity sees fit to employ other 0o00ei, the firm of Prige.a 1ee�' ie! i ling to accept in full settlement for servioes to date the balance of the oerta n fee: of Woo. agreed upon provided same is paid without further delay. The work whioh we have done in ttiis oases based upon our usual system of oharges, would amount to at least $5,000. In addition we have paid out at least $100. in cash for epeoial text books and photographic oopiee of oases to be used in saidmcause. The undersigned is eo confident that his opinion in -this case is oorreot,, that he is willing to enter into a stipulation with the pity to the effeot that in the event the noun employed by the oity to appeal said oauee succeed in recovering in -said, action of.-ejeotken property known as the terminal dook without paying for the improvements- that he will ao.s as said judgment becomes final, refund to the pity of Miami the entire 11500. paid to the firm of Prioe and Eyles. And in the event that the oounsil employed to appeal said case sh in winning the Terminal dook, even though the city has to pay for the improvements, that h weill refund the sum of $750. The oouneel employed in this case believe that, under the contract under whioh they were employed as expressed by the written motions oontained bn the pity oounoil minutes, having been successful in reoovering seven hundred feet of the property lying between the Boulevard and the Bay and extending to the waters of the Bay, they are legally entitled to their full fee of $a500, eaoh, notwithstanding whioh faot, in order that the oity oounsil may be fully satisfied, we make the proposition above designated. } t" I am, Yours very truly, Mitchel? D. Price, For the firm of Price.& Eyles.* The letter referred to by Mr..Ptioe in the opening paragraph of the letter above and foregoing is as follows: Miami, Fla. January 8, 1917. el the on 11 suooeed Hon. E. L. Brady, Miami, Fla. Dear Sir: We notice that a reeilution was passed by the city council a week or so ago directing the attorneys employed to represent the city of Miami in the oass of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, to prooeed with an appear Judge Wolfe informed us immediately afterward that. he had instructed the stenographers who took the testimony, to begin work immediately in transcribing same. The record in this case will be very voluminous, as there were a great many exhibits filed, and five complete copies of the testimony in narrative form, including oopies of all instruments filed, will have to be , prepared in perfeoting said appeal. Peraitally our views are that it ib a mistake to appeal this oases If the present judgment is allowed to stand for a period of six months, it will become absolute, and the railroad company can never question the right of the -city of Miami to extend its park to the waters edge so far as the seven hundred feet are concerned which was recovered in the action of ©jectment. Having onoe reaohed the water, the right to use the water neoessarily follows, and the city by said suit beoome the benefioiary to the extent of several hundred thousand dollars. However, if the oaee is carried to the supreme court, the oity not only stands a chance of gaining nothing, but they also stand a chance of losing all that they have accomplished in the suit that has been tried. In other words, the railroad will doubtless assign counter erroas, and will ask to have the judgment set aside in so far as it applies to them. This judgment might be set aside on two grounds; first, upon -the theory that tGe bottom of the bay belongs to the state, the land between the high water mark and low water mark belongs to the state, and as a good portion of the land recovered shows to have been filled land, that said property belongs to the state, and therefore the city could not recover same in an action of ejeotment. Seoond; it may be set aside under the original theory of the Florida Eget Coast Railway Company, that the park Iaid off and dedicated by the original dedioators of the map of the city of Miami extended only to the then high water line, and that the subsequent fill belonged to the Florida East Coast Railway Company which made said fill. Judge Branning's views, when we first began the trial of this case were that our rights went to the original high water line, but there our rights terminated, and that from said point all filled land belonged to the railroad oompany whioh acquired from Julia D. Tuttle the riparian rights reserved by her. After several days trenuous argument in which a multitude of oases were cited pro and con, the judge decided that the rights of the city extended to the waters of Biscayne Bay, and instructed the verdict which has been given. Judge Wolfs oonourred with our Mr. Mitchell D. Price in the conclusion that if either of them had been trial judge instead of advocate, with their knowledge of the case and with their knowledge of the law applicable thereto, that they would have instructed the same verdict instructed by Judge Branning, with the exoeption that the roadway Which extends aoaose the Northern end of the terminal dook to the boulevard would have been omitted therefrom. For every case that can be produced showing that the doctrine of an equitable estopple dose not 1•ie against the city where it has permitted and enoouraged the railroad company to take possession of this park property and improve same, and allowed said oompany to remain in possession for fifteen or twenty years, we can show at least four•or five ogees that hold to the contrary, and expressly hold that under such oirdumatanoes the doctrine of equitable estoppel does lie against the oity. The city of Miami in the past has done everything in its power to divest -itself of all right, title, interest and claim in and to the terminal dook. It has granted right of ways for the railroad to cross its streets and avenues to reach the terminal dook. It has taxed the terminal dook as railroad property, and suoh taxes have been assessed even since the litigation in question commenced. It enoouraged the railroad company in bui]ting said dook. It allowed the railroad company to spend several hundred thousand dollars in the' improvements there made, and in our opinion no court will give said property to.the oity after fifteen or twenty years delay in bringingauoh ,notion: We write you this letter beoausewe wieh to'.put'ourselves"olearly'ot record, and throw the responsibility of this appeal entirely upon the oity council andnot-upon"-but- selves. In our opinion it is a. vase in whioh nothing can be gained 'by an appeal, and the chances are fair for losing what we have already accomplished, Uffoftu4ate3y,:matter like this, we can not confer with the city- as we wpu1d •.with''a'pr.ivata, olion.0 ::Every word spoken and every" letter written openly to the o.our oil' 1®' seize"d' } po.$041.1cifthe newspapers, and �pubtless even our own views on t 'S oe�sq�jvagainst us when the case is oarrie - .p for appeal before the, mi.*, �=r f5 ;a. „r • A210 r e i ng •`' eiivary We are sorry that the cif oonz oil hoe net seenproper tn:' y its dooks into the bay and thus testing the ciueetion otrinOlah ;xigh . We b 1 even if the city could recover the terminal dooke for park, rooted, ' it would be Ain oalamity to the city as the railroad oompany'tou'ld doubtleise "diver t itsehipping from Miami to Knights Kry or Key West, and thus ooneiderable.00mmeroe diverted from thecity, while the terminal docks, if recovered for park purpoeee, could never be Used by the city for oommeroial purposes.• • We also know that if we should in the aotion now pending before the supreme court, suooeed in recovering a verdict, that the oity of Miami Would have to pay for the improvements, which for park purposes alone, would oast more than the park would be worth. We are writing this letter to each member of the oity council in Airdeek that we might express ourselves to you freely without this oommunioation being public ed in'a newspaper so that same could•be quoted by opposing counsel When the matter goes before the supreme court. If the oounoil ien truot us to continue with the appeal,v"e shall, of course, follow instruotione, though this will be the first case that we have ever carried to the supreme court in which we had no hope of winning, and which we carried up against our own better judgment. We are, Yours very truly, • Price & Kyles, By Mitchell D. Price." The following letter from Hudson, Wolfe & Cason,•joint counsel in the Bay Front litigattr., was, read to council by attorney F M Cason: "Mia mi, January 18, 1917. Hon. City Council, Miami, Florida. Gentlemen: With referenoe to the Bay Park case we submit the following: First: It is necessary to consider the effect of Judge Branning's deoree and the results which aoorue to the city under that decree. As the first and direct result the pity is held to be entitled to two stripe of land bounded on the west by the Boulevard and on the east by the bay, and lying between Third and seventh Streets, aggregating approximately 700 feet in length. As a second and indireot result this automatically gives to the city the common law riparian rights appurtenant to these strips: It follows that the next step for the oity is to take possession of the water front adjacent to the strips in question, and to exercise the rights of ownership. The city has beenedvieed toiake that step and to assert the right of anerahip by the erection of dobke. It is possible and probable that when the city takes such step, an injunction suit may be filed by the railroad company to restrain such action. In that event, the result of such injunction suit will finally determine the rights of the oity with referenoe to the riparian rights appurtenant to the stripe in question. It was the opinion of your attorneys that as a matter of law the suit which pas brought and has been deoided went as far as the city oould go in one suit towards a final determination of the question of riparian rights. 'It has been from the first contemplated by your attorneys that an additional suit might be necessary. They take the view that it wool4 be advantageous for the city to pursue such a course as would put the burden upon the railroad company and leave them to bring the suit. On the other hand, if for any reason the oity can not adopt the suggestion to take possession of the property, the same results oan be obtained in a suit by the city to restrain the railroad company fromninterfering with the free use of the water front. We consider it imperative that the pity adopt and aot upon one of these line3of All the foregping has refe'rrence to the rights of the city under the decree or the oirouit court as the matter now stande. The appeal which has been instituted by the city will involve these additional questions. It will determine the rights of the city in the property commonly known as e terminal dock property. There is a reasonably good prospeot that the supreme court will hold Judge Branning's decision on this point erroneous. On the other hand, the attorneys for the railroad company have contended throughout suit that the rights of the city in the strips above mentioned are limited to the original water line and that the accretions thereto and the riparian rights appurtenant do not inure to the benefit of the city. There is a possibility that thie point might be sustained on appeal, though in our opinion, it is not probable.. This, however, is the one danger to be-ereauseed-fag the city to be incurred by the appeal. In obedience to the instructions of the city council steps necessary 'to.G:the perfection of the appeal are being taken, and the record is now being prepared. We stand ready to prosecute this appeal with the utmost vigor, and we believe that we have reasonable ground to expect a reversal by the supreme court. Going back to the history of the case and expressing the matter in different language, our contention is that by aoquiring the stripe of land bounded by•the waters of the ;; bay along the seven hundred feet front, the city has acquired the riparian rights appurtenant thereto, and that the only thing the city has not gained which was sued for in the ejectment suit is that portion of land and riparian rights actually taken up by and used in oonneotion with the terminal dock. It is not possible for us to`prevent the railroad company from claiming that they still have the riparian rights adjaoent to the seven hundred. foot strip, but we think thei claim can be defeated if they attempt to assert it in any tangible way. Now regarding the question which seems to be the pause of so much agitation, that is, why was the riparian rights question eliminated from the ejectment suit? We beg to advise that in our opinion, this question was not eliminated in ,act; The phrase "riparian rights" was stricken from the declaration, beoause we did nol and do not now believe that a suit in ejectment can lie for the specific recovery of an intangible right,Towever, since the intangible right necessarily goes with the tangible, the .reccvorY-of the possession of the highland, oarries with it the recovery of the riparian xighrta 'belonging thereto. Therefore, the specific mention of "riparian rights" in the'deolaratiom was ptgely'surplusage, and properly stricken. Respectfully submitted, Eudson, Woffe .& Cason, .,. Mr. Romfh: I want to take full responsibil .ty :tier'=:m& 1Ag; t ettey`publio. 1t wa - address d.t me as a member of thisJy council and went`- ;COite+s` ter giYing bi!s ;,opi iQZi,: that could not win, that it would be wrong, °` .,in. �- m a' a i'�or s•r F104, procedure. • elaz;: be frig January 18, 1917: respect for Mr. Prioe'o opinion and he is entitled to whatever1wbelieves, at the name ti believe I am entitled to my own opinion. I Welieve it would be right if;we:did .recover'.th and I don't believe the F E gwould move one box to Knight's Key. They offered 'to seli''uai t provided we would give them the same use of it we did others. We have a dook that is.muoh than they have, with 20 feet of water, that they oan use On the same basis every one else will use it, so I am not worried about them going out of the city., I don't think he shcu1 write such a letter, reciting this opinion seeking to influence them not to do this. I would not have this case go to the supreme oourt and then have this letter published.. I thi it was something the people should know and I gaveit to the Metropolis and would do the ea thing again. As to the deoision that the city would have to pay for the terminal dook, if decision is made then it is up to this council and the people of Miami whether they will furnish the money to pay for it and not up to the attorneysfor the city. Personally I bell that would make a maginifioent park if we had to pay for it and fill it out from 3rd to 7th Street. I am not willing to go to the supreme court if the attorneys believe they are whip I don't believe an army ever won a battle if it thought it was whipped, and I am not ttsatisf as one member of this oounoil, but want to go up. I am not ready to admit we are whipped, and while I respect his legal advice, I do think it is up to this council to do something t get this to the supreme oourt and think it would be best to accept hie proposition=if he wi to withdraw and I know he will refund if we do win. I didn't catch all of the letter and i might be well to refer the matter to a committee. The people are interestedand want to see ho owns this bay front and if it is a good proposition to pay out money foil feel the people will give us something to pay for'it. That is my position. We started in to fight t thing through and I am not ready to quit. r. Highleyman: You will remember that when this case was decided I was almost brutally fr y displeasure over the way it was handled. It was the intent of this council, and oertai in making the motion, for the riparian rights question to be settled. The thought never entered my mind at that time about the park. The Judge Worley decision had settled that. W the attorneys eliminated that feature without saying anything to oounoil I was displeased. of us oare to ride a balky horse,- that usually ledds to a fall and it is evident they ell hey they would nct oare to oarry it up and I for one, under the oiroumstanoes, think it- wo e beet to have other attorneys. I think we should go further than appealing the oase ' Ini rom the decision of the lower oourt. If I understand correctly, we can only appeal on the rounds on which the looal court fight was made. We went on record that we would go further d decide the riparian rights oase. I would like to see the terminal dooke oome to us at a eaeonable price, or for nothing, and want to go further and find out who owns the riparian ights between 3rd and 7th Streets,- if'we do all right, and if the railroad owns it we may e made to make arrangements for the rights. There was a suggestion that a pier be built here and teat the matter from that standpoint, but if we make arrangements I believe we hould include something that will decide the entire matter, not alone the terminal docks but the whole.queetion from 3rd to 7th Street. rr. Pric: I am glad to hear mr. Romfh'e explanation of how that letter was published. A la as no right to reveal any secret of his client but the client has that right, and if the c bouncil think s that proper go go before the publio I am satisfied. There is nothing in th etter I am ashamed of and nothing I wish to retraot. The question of the recovery of this roperty is one that I have given exhaustive study. I devoted at least three months studyin aces in oonneotion with the bay front suit, and, as I stated sometime ago,. I not only exha :he libraries in Miami, but purohased many and sent and got photographic oases. I had been briefing on the oase about three days when I realized that the main fight the city was goi leas going to be on the dootrine of equitable estoppel. It is often the oase that a man or Orporation owns property that he can not recover. A man may own a horse but if another has it three years he can't recover but is barred by the statute of limitations. He may 'wn a piece of land but if another lives on it alma years he can't recover it. The statute ion does not apply against a oity but in a majority of the states the doctrine of equitab stoppel does apply. It is possible the supreme court may follow an Alabama decision that i oes not apply, and even the text books say that the doctrine will lie against the city in here the city is permitting a railway oo.rporation or individual to take charge of a part o roperty and places valuable improvements thereon and allow them to remain in possession fo ifteen years. In this case the evidenon shows that the city encouraged the railroad to ake possession of the terminal dock. The evidence shows they were granted rights of way t build a b railroad. The evidence show they put this on the tax books, not as park property but as property of the F E 0 Railroad, and even after the Worley oase this property has been .seessed for taxes year after year and it has been collected; for 1916 it is on the tax book for a valuation of something short of 100,000. and it is assessed by, this oity as the proper f the F E 0. The proposition which I have laid down is that if the city has enoouraged the tailroad company to spend, and the evidence shows that they have spent at least $300,000. in illing that dook and the basins in front of it and the ohannels that lead up to it, it is v robable that the supreme oourt will say,that the city has encouraged the work regardless of be fact that they might have recovered it, the doctrine applies and the oity can not reoove hat is my private view after investigating the authorities and I am anxious to see the city Win. The brief I have is ready and the authorities I have are at your disposal and if you mploy other counsel I will be glad to give you that. I have no ill will for my successor. Would have been glad to have carried the oase on except that several citizens of Miami seem tie dissatisfied in regard to the way this oase was handled. I know the judge who tried the oes not think anyone failed to do his duty, nor the jury, and if any citizen of Miami think other lawyer oan do better I would be glad to see it given him and if he oan win he has my ongratulations. He has a fighting chance to have the supreme court give you the terminal d f they follow the Alabama case whifh stands by itself, but lithe court follows the preponde f cases they will hold the dootrine does apply; and if this oase is serried to the supreme here is a possibility, not a probability, that the casemay be decided adversely to the ity so as not to give you what you have recovered. It hasbeen said we knew we owned the ark but we didn't know we had possession and there was t fence we couldn't cross., We went ccording to the boundaries fixed only to high water. They may say.. it was filled land, but i ocidentally filled by dumping dirt or leakage from the main dock and not permanent improvem t it is possible the supreme oourt may say our rights stop at the ariginal high water line at the riparian rights having been reserved in Julia D. Tuttle, it is still vested in her er heirs. The railroad will doubtless file a cross bill. It is also possible the supreme ourt will say the bottom of th.. bay belongs to the state of Florida, the land between high ow water mark, and when this fill was made on property of the state then the oity„ could.not cover. It has only reoently been decided in New York that land that has.been filledin,. ere the rules are the same, the land between high and low water mark was vested in the tate and the court of highest resort decided the filled land belonged to the state and not artiea who did the filling. Mr. Bowen oited another oase that this property belonged to he state of Florida if not to the railroad and therefore we could not recover in 'an aotion eotment. However, I don't say this to prevent you employing counsel to oarry it up as 1 w it carried up, and if you win the terminal dook without having to pay for the improvements, will oheerfully refund every dollar of the $1500. the pity will pay me; on the other hand, i you win the dock and have to pay for the improvements.I willrefund one half the fee, I wil p{at it sin writing and believe all of you know 1 am gaol; for the amount. ;,rr}Hurta edliagaisahfiRdiBeials48 i et9atUr. r o:e i s that: I :think we would :win on,- if an hc. dad :belongs': t , t e ,..tat+ ',,.:We.,:ho . e I s strip otter k e hat ve ed. ed, hes is k in y mine en one ld er y various ted to f limita- se its 7 ry 0 oase ok ance court was nts, d o the f A21.0 ti L Regular meeting Jar.uary 18 i9i; change to.e enure it from the state at a reaSO ablb ti Mr. Price 'You tried that at the last seSeion'of thst?ldglelature. Mr. Wharton: We didn't try very hard; there was a Oct:promise., I. know the way the m tter stands now it is very unsatisfactory to a great many people fol.low0d the oa0ai. Not that they think it has not been handled right but that we should fight it to the last ditoh. Personally, and I believe everybody in Miami, knows that Der Price is One of the MO reputable and high olaee lswyera we have and it is not a question of ireputiflg to him the idea of not wanting to fight the case. The best way to try out the riparian rights I don't know, possibly as the attorneys suggested, build a dook out there and let the railroad tryb stop us. As it is, I see very little difference in the status of the ease now and before it was started exoept that this oourt said the park went to the present waters edge and no just to high water mark. It was started before I became a member of this oounoil but I was under the impression that every feature of the water front was to be settled in this o and I believe the people generally:Rant to know who is who and what is what and I am in favor o going ahead and fighting it out on.the lines the lower courts have ruled upon, as: if it 14Phot clear then I am in favor of testing the riparian rights feature. I have been ordered off the terminal dook once or twice myself and didn't like it, but if I had known was prid&te property I would not have trespassed. Mr. Romfh: There are nearly as many opinions on this riparian rights as there was at one time on deep water,- we followed them all and went round and round. All I *ant is for all the evidence in this case to be put before the supreme oourt and argued by attorneys who believe in the oase . It is very true, as Mr. Prioe.eaye, that the city council endeavored to divest themselves of all rights there. I don't know whether that would have any bearing but I would like to have it shown,- the.00nneotion between the council and the railroad at that time. I have been here since 1898.and eome.of the men on the oounoil were in the employ of the railroad. Under our charter to -day we couldn't make a contract and serve in private business. .I am not a lawyer.but I think these things may have some bearing. I don't know they would but would like to see everything.go.before the supreme court, argued out and have their final decision. That is when the people of Miami Will be satisfied. If I was a soldier I would not want to fight under a general who thought he was licked and as a member of oounoil I don't want any fighting under attorneys who believe we are whipped. I believe if it was referred to a oommittee to disouss the matter and report baok to council, unless of course you want to go ahead under present arrangements. Personalt I do not. This is not a reflection on these gentlemen - they believe they are entitled to their opinion. Mr. Prioe is so oertainwe will lose thA he will give us money if we win, d I would rather have someone who thinks we will win. I know very little about legal details, but some of the biggest battels have been won by men who believed they had a f ight- iing ohanoo, and I believe we have that obanoe and want to fight it out, not in the circuit oourt but in the highest oourt we oan go to, with all the evidence before them, and if we are licked we oan say we did the best we could and left no stone unturned to.help Miami. Mr. Brady: I don't believe the people of Miami, taking it on a whole, will be satisfied until it is taken to the supreme oourt,.let is cost what it may. A lot of ue think we know something about law, but a little knowledge about law is a dangerous thing and I don't see any use of putting it off on a oommittee - let us take it to the supreme oourt. I have the greatest respect and regard for the firm of Price & Eyke s and.believe that Mr. Price wrote that letter oonaoientiously. I believe he meant for every councilman to take that to heart and to oonfer among.themselves, whether he should have orders to go ahead or stop, but it has been given to the press, who are judge and jury, and there is nothing left to be dolue j by that firm. I believe Mr. Prioe'a advice is good. A great many people don't believe tha railroad has any rights there at all. I am not a henohman of the railroad or a friend of the rairload, I ship 90% by water, I don't ask the rairlood any rights or privilegee, but they are due a certain amount of reapeot so far as allowing them what they own. I am not speaking for the railroad, but for the city; we ham a hard cave on our hands but the people want it settled and there is no use putting it off,- lets take the bull by the horns, put our hands in the people's pocket and carry it to the supreme court. Mr. Romfh: I am not satisfied to fight with attorneys who believe they are whipped. I would not 'Ate to oarry it up with present counsel. I think we should consult other oounael to see if we have a fighting chance. I think we should ohange attorneys. I believe a oommittee could talk with different attorneys. City Atty. Cason: Judge Wolfe, as you probably know, handled this matter with Mr. Pride in oirouit court and he was not able to be out to night but.he diotated the letter which has been read, which poebibly will not apply in some particulars awing to Mr. Prioe's atatement. He was not informed of the statement of Mr. price and'I am not in position he would take in view of Mrs Price'a.statement. Mr. Brady: I misunderstood Mr. Romfh's suggestion of a oommittee' I see now he meant a ' committee to be appointed to confer with legal counsel. I thought it useless to.appoint a oommittee to oonfer among themselves on the subject. Mr. Price: I want to call your attention to the fact that'your time for appeal is limited. You had six months to prepare a bill of exceptions and something like three have passed. The bill of exceptions will be very voluminous, probably 1000 pages. You should be diligent in the matter if you want to oarry it up. So fax everything that could • be done has been done. Under your inetruotions stenographers were put to work copying the testimony, but there was a great many documents in the case and it will be consider- able work to gepare the bill and I suggest for that reason you do not delay the matter. Moved by 0. T. Hoghleyman, seconded by E. L. Brady, that the diatrman`appoint a oommittee of council to decide on the prosecution of the case and the. employment of oounsel,- either the present attorneys or other attorneys as they may deoide.. Motion carried. The Chairman appointed Councilmen Romfh Highl,eyman dnd Wharton. WATER MAINS EXTENSION BISCAYNE DRIVE HIGHLAND PARK The clerk read the following letter from the Miami Water 0 zgpany: "Miami, Fla. Jan 10, 1917 Mr. C. H. Reeder, City Auditor, =k' City Dear Sir: Referring to your l iters of Deoerober nth and Jafua►ry 9th;; n referenda to: fire hydrants and two inoh oonneot` ne to be ii eta7,1e4 at poiir ts;•indioatis44,41_ your lett4 I beg to advise that we expect to get to,.w,to b :<;the oo . a ons for Highland park this afternoon.. The. other; wo oasible with the exoeption,,of. ,thert;fit vlsabl;e_..to boWup>; __ .%T447 4n the_Drive, thee present ►ipe thereon being too small to be of any value fOr euo►-;prate We have been trying to. start tide work forthe past week brit hags been..unab to put on an additional foroe of men aaoount of the soaroity of labor in th ity. Our workmen are now employed on the streets where paving is in roams and is all we oan do to keep ahead of the paving oontraotors. Yours very truly, H. H. Hyman, Manager. On motion of E. O. Romfh; seconded by L. T. Highleyman, the letter was received and ordered oopied in the minutes, with instructions to bring the matter up at the end of sixty days. PETITION TO RECONSIDER TTRAFFIO ORDINANCE NO. 230. To the Honorable Mayor of the Oity of Miami, Fla. Mr. P. A. Henderson Dear Sir: - We the undersigned earnestly pray that you oall a special meeting oounoil of Miami, Fla. for the purpose of reconsidering the traffic ordinance passed by the oity council. and about 40 others. G. M. Bunnell. P. A. Lee, E. B. Douglas, J. E. Junkin,Jr. 0. B. Kline, M. Gallat, H. E. Davis, James F. 'lathers, G. F. Yopp, H. W. Hubbard, R. L. Hill, T. J. Lanier, 0. A. MoNeil, F. M. Thompson, of the .oit recently G. A. Bunnell, W. M. Burdine, Don Ferris, Elbre'e Drug Store, John T. Knight Store, J. L. Pringle, E. O. Thompson, On motion duly made and parried the matter was referred to the traffic oommittee for investigation. (Committee, Mayor, Councilmen Romfh and Filer) PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM OF MME. MARTIN, MODISTE "January 12, 1917 To the Hon. City Council, City of Miami, Florida. Gentlemen: On the evening of November 9th last Mme. Martin, a modiste, whose place of business is located at No. 1210 Avenue 0, was injured by falling over some debris whioh was located on the south sidewalk between Avenue 0 and D on 13th Street. This injury occurred at about 9 P.M. Mme. Martin was confined to her bed something like five weeks having sustained very serious sprains and bruises on the knee and elbow, a badly sprains ankle, and in the fall wrenched her back and spine. Dr. A. G. Holmes, the physioian who was called in attendelos, diagnosed the caoe, finds that Mme. Martin has now what is teohnioally called a "railway spine. This is an ailment which the dootor says is one th will require at least two years under the very closest and oarefullest kind of treatment to get over, and in many instanoes, it an never be cured at all. The ailment is extreme painful, as generally all spinal troubles are. It is now a long time sinoe the injury took place, and Mme. Martin oan not to this day walk around without aid of some kind. Th above described in a general way the injury sustained. Information revealed upon investigation the responsibility for the injury, diecloees the fact that the debris was on the sidewalk for several days, having been taken out of the gutter of the street and plaoed upon the sidewalk by someone whose iden we oan not at this time reveal. Suffice it, at this time, to say that the injury took plane upon a sidewalk whioh was unlawfully onstruoted, and over which the oity of Miami complete jurisdiction, oontrol and care of. Mme. Martin is a self sustaining woman, having also the oars and support Incumbent upon her of a son. Her business as.a Modiste has averaged her an inoome approximating $50. per week. She has praotioally lost her business by reason of this inj inasmuoh as she is unable pbyeioally to take oars of it. She has Buffered the loss of physioiane bills and drug expenses, and also nurses bills during the period of oonfinmen by the injury, all amounting to approximately $200. A fair estimate of the future physioiane expenses which she will be obliged to pay for ohiropraotio and masseur treat- ment for her spine in the next few years has been estimated by Dr. Holmes to be at a kini of $300. Should it be that the injury sustained would eventually turn out to be permane as no one can at this time tell, it is very apparent that Mme. Martin will be obliged to give up her business career as a modiste. From the above it is very apparent that great serious financial loss, as well as paid, mental suffering and anguish has been sustained by the negligence of someone in the oity employ. I have taken the subject up with Mr. Fred Cason, the vity attorney, who has suggested this communication for the city council. The injury sustained may be over $10,000, but if a reasonable compromise of the olaim could be effected, the writer will all in his power to make an amicable settlement of the oaee. The writer will in person be present at the next meeting of the city oounoil t ask for a reading of this letter, to make a. personal statement of the oaee, and to wooer the view of the oity oounoil pertaining to the matter. Yours very truly, W. M. Huber.* Atty. Huber: I have here some photographs of debris on the sidewalk and by examining the it will be olear how the injury 000urred. Mr. Erfert: The chief of police can give us some information on this; he investigated next morning. Atty. Huber: The debris was on the sidewalk unlawfully; somoonp.put it,there and by reas of negligenoe a person has been badly injured and in view of that I think something-shou done, espeoially so if it is the oity's fault. It was in front cPMrs. Managua's propert Mr. Brady: You should see her. Atty. Huber: The city has jurisdiction *Ad I :ti i 1�';;; ' : = ,,k �, ;;# , 4 ►� i, a t *0 to remove unlawful, obstruotions. qe do notX#or."° revealed at. ,dais time. ] believe tion. it ity ad ry, oaused t, 0 ain d be A210 • is liability, should attempt to make some Settlement with this lady. x ;herve�„ :t9 talked', Mr. Cason and he suggested that I talk to you and see4f sotde arrangementW OOUl'd be Oity Atty. Cason: The only reason I suggested it be brought before ooaiaoll., that is the. only proper way to do it. I have no power to enter into any agreement with referenoi to injuries or anything of the kind and the oharter provides that is the Onlyvat it can be t up; and if you want to refer it to me I shall be glad to investigate the facts and advise you as to whether there is liability. I have looked into the case some*Oat but not fully as I didn't care to spend several days when I was not sure it would come before oounoil. Moved by L. T. Highleyman, seoonded by E. O. Romfh, that the matter be referred to the city attorney for minvestigation. Motion oarried. PETITION TO RECONSIDER TRAFFIC ORDINANCE N0. 230 (See page 534) ,Rep. of Chauffeurs: I would like to ask if this measure was passed for the welfare or health of Miami. According to the oharter there are only two things you•oan pass under forty days for that purpose and these are the two. This was passed as an emergenoy , ordinance and taken up at onoe. Atty Cason: The oourts hold that it is within the discretion of this oounoil to say what is for the publio welfare and necessity and if the oounoil decides that an ordinance fleets publio welfare or necessity that is final with the courts and as council has so. eoided the matter is final. As to the reasons for oounoil reaching that oonolusion I oan of answer any more than anjaone else. Conditions were such that traveling on lath Street as beo)ming dangerous and merohante complaining that oustomere had no cocoas to the side- alks,- never a vaoant plaoe where oars could atop and dieoharge passengers, and many her complaints, probably familiar to Mr. Coaohman and directly or indirectly to council. Chauffeur: We have a petition here signed by practically every merohant in the oity, asking ounoil to reoonsider and that it is an injury to their business; and not only that, but e who have haoka, it has shot us all to pieces. We have no proteotion against haoking. ars that come in here for the winter time and that is the only time we have to make money, d the only plaoe as a rule where the publio travel is on 12th Street. I don't believe the aoking oars block traffic on lath Street. Your officers will state the haoking oars give no rouble but the oars parked by business men who leave them all day. A hack never etanda.dm in e place longer than an hour and I would like to ask oounoil to be a little more lenient,- 1ive us some time on 12th Street, we don't ask for all of it, but we do ask that you eoonaider and give us a little time there. Not a one of the haok oars but will move if j anyone drives up and asks to get in and every business man we have asked about it has tranted us the privilege of our oars standing in front of their plane of business, and his petition has been signed by every business man. I don't see why the oounoil can't tak U little action. ;fir. Romfh: We have taken aotion.,The gentleman is out of order. The traffic oommittee will l ake the matter up. r. Hoghleyman: was on the traffic oommittee and as I understood it at the time of the eating, we weretoThave oertain open spaoes along 12th Street. Mr. Sewell euggeated we ave signs showing places where to park and where not to park. Personally I rather think' 2th Street now looks like any other street and would like toms more oars. r. Filer: I think we can work the matter out for the benefit of the home boys. Chauffeur: I would ask that you give us the privilege of parking on 12th Street from 7 p.m. dr. Romfh: We will take the matter up in a few days. 1 !PARK FOR COLORED TOWN :To the Honorable City Counoil Gentlemen: We the undersigned colored citizens and tax payers ask your honorable body to buy theland from the Seourity Land Company, as shown on the plat of the Japes or Seste Subdivision, for a oolored park. This looation is very satiefaotory to ue, being near the publio schools and near the center of opoulation. Signed by S. J. Boyd, J. R. Knowles, D. A. Dorsey, S. M. Frazier, and about twenty five Others. 2hetBrady: That is a petition from the oolored people to have oounoil buy the property fr dr. Welborn. I supposed the matter was closed. It was offered for $5600. one fourth oaeh balanoe one, two and three years at 6% Mr. Romfh: The white people are not objecting to it? . Mr. Brady: Not to me. I talked it over with you and we decided to close with Mr. J. I. Wilson, the agent for Mr. Welborn, provided the interest was not over 6%. Mr. Romfh: After that someone told me there would be objection from the Highland Park poop !We don't want any race feeling to be stirred up.. The land is worth the money and we ehoul have a negro park. Mr. Hefty: It has been discussed for a month or more and it seems their objections would have been filed if they have any. Mr. Erfert: No one has raised an objection and it has been talked for three months. I woul much rather have a park than a lot of negro ahaoks and that is what it will be and the white folks no better off. I think the city should close this thing up., They want ba park and are entitled to it,- they are tax payers. J. E. Wilson, Agent for Welborn: I have heard .of no ob eotio a. Mr.•, Brady talked it over with me. We had the property sold to other parties but told them the,'oity was going to t`ai4 II it. Mr. Romfh: Tt seems their objeotiona should have been filed Mr. Hefty: I feel perfectly safe on that, e4 or' . Moved by E. O. Romfh, seconded :by, F.�,- from Robert Welborn, in, Jar, Am rx hTi w »� t/ 1e m �rE t ter, Ari :t. .1� T Y' L d'ylati.Y ,4 �, yIA�i MM rt. �rT . the oity attorney of the title, an.abstrhot' of title. to be ftirnithed thb oityy and the. proper oity officials authoriaed'to exeout• six per oent note*. Motion carried. . PETITIONS FOR STREET LIGHTS The clerk read petitions for street lights at Avenue E and S2nd, 29rd and 2let Street and on2l between D and E. On mtoion duly made and carried the petition was referred to street oommitteeman with power to act. FINES AND FORFEITURES REQUEST TO REFUND PORTION OF NEAR BEER LICENSE PAID BY EUGENE POR R AND FORFEITED ON HIS CONVICTION FOR SELLING LIQUOR. Atty. R. R. Taylor: I would like to talk to you about undoing something you had already ne. I want to appeal to your meroy. Mr. Porter was convicted of selling liquor in hie plaoe 7th and Avenue G. The main evidenoe to oonviot him was from a professional boot+4legger he has served time on the streets. Mr. Porter is an invalid for life and going:. blind. T li oense had run about one month - it is in your duty to right this. I appeal to you for nonone ever heard a more harsh oonviotion. He paid the full penalty of fine and his lioenee was taken away from him. It is a harsh sentence. Mr. Romfh: Dade County is dry. Atty Taylor: He was licensed to sell near beer and a orowd of bums got around him. Mr. Hefty: This matter has been before oounoil. Mr. Taylor: I know it has but let me explain these faota. If you have found you havd don a wrong Mr. Hefty: As we had the evidence, it is altogether different from what you state. The oit attorney gave us the evidence. The man testified he bought whiskey from Porter himself an not a boot-legger. Mr. Taylor:` As I understand it, this man was in charge at the time and had this liquor, Porter was not represented by counsel, he was misrepresented by Bennett. It is only an act of justioe to return at leastta part of this man's money,- an aot of meroy and kindnes You can't go into a bank to -day and draw a oheok unless you have a deposit and our daily acts are bigger than banks in ants of kindness and mercy and unless you do so the Cashier ill say "I know you not." He has been more than punished by taking this $500. and paying his dine besides and it is not right and not just and I appeal to you on that side. If he was a b able bodied man like old man Erfert. Mr. Erfert: Old man Erfert knows better than to sell beer. Mr. Tay or: He enjoys a good glass of beer. Mr. Erfert: Yee, sir, but he pays for it. Mr. Taylor: It is a harsh and unjust aot. Mr. Erfert: Your case has been settled. The attorney said he had a fair trial and he sold iquor to the man; there was a oase of liquor marked at the depot that morning and he had it in s house and sold it. Mr. Taylor: I asked you once before to give some money bank and had to make you. Mr. Hefty: It was shown here that this man bought the liquor from Porter himself. Mr. Tayorl: These were not the faots as I understand them at all. Mr. Erfert: We had it from the oity attorney who proseouted the case. Council is thoroughl satisfied. TAXES COMPLAINT OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST LOTS OF POINT VIEW SUBDIVISION To His Honor the Mayor and Counoil,. Miami, Florida. Having been a ssessed through admitted error $7500. on my lot at point view, and known ae 106 Kathryn Avenue, said error 000urring by the supposition that it was a water front lot oarrying riparian rights, and having paid my taxes on this erroneous assessment for the full amount i • $90. I hereby request your honorab e body to have said error corrected on the books of the assessor to correspond with adjoining property of same value, which is assessed at $2000. and which sum the assessor states to be a.fair and. equab,e amount, and that you refund to me *SS. the sum paid in exoess, and in duty bound I will ever pray. Respectfully Catherine Lyman Naramore. To His Honor the Mayor, and City Council.. Gentlemen: The assessment of $7500. on Catherine Lyman Naramore's lot 05 Point View is an error oaueed by the supposition that it was a water front lot oarrying riparian rights, a fair and equable assessment on this lot is $2000. Respectfully T. A. Price. (City Assessor) Mr. Highleyman: It is not a Bay Front, has no riparian rights and the lot next to it is es at $2000. I don't agree with Mr. Price on hie figures. 1 think Naramore'e lot more valuat and the assessment should be $2500. but there is no question about the $7500. being entire unfair. It is more than he paid me for ;the lot and is the same assessment as is made aga bay fronts -with riparian rights. Clerk Moore: 0n the map it appears to have riparian rights; it sets at an angle. Mr. Highleyman: It has 100 feet front but narrows down toward the rear to about 50 feet. Mr. Romfh: If it is an error it should be oor.r,epted., Moved by E. 0. Romfh.1 09094 } j F7'YY ,.ri f� Ft tossed e et r• s.,.7 .y,��• W' !..f... ., ry Wyk; ... „y,y .9, .r. _ap3 ;i, e. .ill ty.. .,.: ai. F' s t�"�.'•; .ws turned in by the assessor:. Potion Carrie '1';•�x „urk ra 00. 1 • 0 FINES AND FORFEITURES REFUND OF FIND TO CHAR MANN CONVIOTED OF DISCHARGING FIREARMS ON SUNDAY Mr. Mannaddressed oounoil stating that on last Sunday morning he. attempted to shoet some rats on the river front and was arrested and•fined $15. Stated be fired only , one shot and missed the rat. Mr. Romfh: I believe if he bad hit the rat the money should be refunded. Moved by E. 0. Romfh, seconded by L. T. Higbleyman that the $15. fine be refunded. Motion parried. PLANS FOR PROPOSED NEW MUNICIPAL BUILDING Architect W. C. DeGarmo presented drawings and sketches of.a proposed new City Hall. The drawings were examined by council and turned over to the oity auditor for safe keeping. • DOOR HARBOR MUNICIPAL RAILWAY FAOILITIES Mr. Brady: We will have to move some pipe iinei at the opnneotion between the F E C and our municipal railway,- pipe lines used by the o.l companies to unload from tank oars to storage tanks and with your permission I will authorize the changes and of course the oity will have to meet the expense. motion duly made and carried, the park committeeman was authorized to make the eoessary changes in the pipe lines. Mr. Brady: Some days ago Mr. Reeder and Mr. Randolph came tone me about bulk -heading the north slip and dredging it out for a yacht basin. It will cost about $10. per foot which will mean approximately $11,000. and the dredging about $4,000. Mr. Randolph thinks an estimate of $16,000. will be perfectly safe for 1p feet of water. If we go lower than that the bulkheading will be much more expensive. This will a000modate the eaohts and small sailing vesels, very few draw more than 10 feet, and leave the south slip and dook for steamers and large sailing vessels. Mr. Reeder and Mr. Randolph went ver the matter very carefully with me, I suppose we spent three or four hours on it. �Ir Radnolph: I think we will have to take the matter up with the War Departrent. I don't (believe there will be any trouble about getting ten feet of water. I believe the matter Hof building the north side of the dock is a dead issue and was a misunderstanding on the part of Maj. Ladue. PROPOSED BOND ISSUE $400,000. Mr Romfh: Just as a preliminary on the matter of money. If we build a oity hall we ill need about $50,000. according to the building committeeman; about $75,000. for sanitaV sewers. There has been talk of a sewage disposal system to take oare of this stuff now going into the Bay and we have $75,000. down for that; we have 050,000 additional for (the hospital, which will give us about $?5,000. for that purpose, and 450,000. to ;complete the north side of the dooke and warehouses; $20,000. for the channel and dredging,- the material in the channel 1 going to run over the engineer's estimate. $10,000 for the completion of Avenue D and 12th Street bridges and $15,000. additional for the proposed Avenue G bridge - I don't know whether that is enough or not. The authority you get from the votes of the people is not to exceed a oertain amount; $30,000. for :municipal railway. This is merely preliminary and if the auditor will give each council- man a copy or memo. we will have the resolution ready at the next regular meeting. There is also $257000. for parks. This is merely preliminary and for council to think over. JITNEY BUSS ORDINANCE TOTEGULATE Councilman Romfh introduoed ORDINANCE NO. 831 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE OPERATION OF JITNEY BUSSES AND JTNEY BUSS LINES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND DEFINING THE SAME: REQUIRING AND NOVIDING FOR THE LIOENSE THEREOF, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A LICENSE THEREFOR MAY BE ISSUED, AND FIXING THE AMOUNT OF LICENSE FEES TO BE PAID THEREON; PROVIDING FOR THE GIVING OF INDEMNITY BONDS 0R POLICIES OF LIABILITY INSURANOE; AND PRESCRIBING THE AMOUNT THEREOF; AND PROVIDING PENALITES FOR THE VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN. Moved by F. H. Wharton, seoonded by E. L. Brady, that ordinance No. 231 be given first reading and read in full. Motion carried. The ordinance was read in full. Moved by F. H. Wharton, seconded by F. G. Erfert that ordinance No. 331 be given second reading and read by title only. Motion parried. The ordinance was read by title only. CROSSINGS OVER FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY FOURTH STREET CROSSING City Atty. Cason: In this suit the railroad company contended for the cost of the land and the oost of the permanent improvements, together with 13m per year for upkeep of the safety gates. The oourt ruled with the city all the way round and allowed the 'railroad the sum wh8oh the engineers estimated to be the oget Of moving the switches at $408. and in addition they recovered reasonable attvrnayle fees, fixed at $125., makiig a total of MS. damages. They recovered nothing f9r; the;` A: of tc ;e:,.land, simply the actual post of making physical changes there, p1v otbeir;attarnaj I s fees and the street can be opened at any time the money is paid over. ,' Mr. Wharton: I am glad to hear that report. 1 thine verrdiat aat efactory_, Moved by F. H. Wharton, seconded by E. L: B payment of the damages and attorney! i .,, f, take possession of the prowl. g,, 4 . Motion.0 rie . • 1♦ 4.4 {'• PARKS OFFER OF THE TATUMS TO SELL BLOCK IN LAWRENCE ESTATE FOI PARK SIZE Mr. S. M. Tatum: We have one solid block of lots left in Lawrenoe Estate, on Lawrenoe D between loth and llth; the price is $18,000. Of oourse it is immaterial to us whether yo purohase it or not but we will hold it off the market fora few days for your oonsiderati I just happened to think Of it. It don't matter about the money. COMFORT STATION FINAL PAYMENT TO CONTRACTORS Mr. Erfert presented the arohiteots oertif ioate, approved by himself and Arohiteot Geiger, covering the final approval and estimate amounting to $1460. on the oomfort station constructed by Wolfe and Ewing on the court house lot. 0n motion duly made and carried the building was reoeived by the oity and the auditor was instructed to draw voucher in fan 6 of Wolfe & Ewing in payment of the final estimate. 11 BIDS FOR COMPLETION OF SIDEWALK DISTRICT NO. 7 and CURB AND GUTTER WORK UNDER OONTRACT T• BISCAYNE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; WHICH COMPANY DEFAULTED IN ITS CONTRACT The bids for this work were opened, in a000rdanoe with due advertisement, and read by the clerk as follows: F. L. Devane Freedlund Const. Co. J. R. Little, J. W. Gurley. The bide were on a unit basis and on motion duly made and carried were referred to the o engineer for tabulation. Attest. tY 470unoil City Auditor ve J