Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1860-09-21
Tn LrAsrL1rY or TIE CORPORATION ron DAM

= THE LIABrLIrY or THE CORPORATION ron DAM
hSEs TO PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM MOE vIo-
L.NcE.-sOme time ago two citizens Of washing
petitioned the CITY Counck for remuneration for
damages sustained on the'night of the last June
election by a. gang Of rowdies" who, as they
alleged, ON the night In question committed
violent assault upon their premises, at the cor
of street south and Seventh street east fSixth
Ward.) The doors and windows Of the house
belonging to Mr. Alfred Edelin, were COM
pletely demolished, and his damages were laid at
about $50. The furniture and II stures In the b ar
ber's shop Of Mr.. John 8 Wolfe in the same
building, were broken up and DESTROYED, to the
value, as be alleged, Of SIS. The statements OF
both petitioners were sworn to. and accompanied
by certificates as to the extent Of damages, made
by respectable citizens, and given under oath
In the Board Of Aldermen these claims were re-
ported by the proper committee, and the chair
man (Mr. McNerhany, y though entertaining some
doubts as to whether the petitione had remedy
in the city councils, was In favor Of the passae e
Of bills for their relief on the ground that they
both pay taxes to the Corporation, and that the
Cor poration, I'm consideration Of such taxes. is
bound TO afford them adequate protection. That
there is an implied contract between the Corpo-
ration and the tax-Payef In thi: respect which
McNerhany also took the ground, that In case the
Corporation Is not legally bound, the claims of
the petitioners ought to be considered as excep-
tional cases. Tor the reason that the occasion was
extraordinary, the police having been ordered
away ON their regular beats, and concentrated
In a central portion Of the city thus leaving Nh.
Suburban wards without adequate protection,
ana the mob having taken advantage Of this cir.
cnmstance to perpetrate the violence above men
toned "
Other members of the board took a similar view
OF the case; but objection having been raised to
tue nvoraole consideration Of the claims unless
sustained by authority Of the Corporation Attor-
ney, the whole subject was referred back 10 the
committee with Instructions to obtain the Cpl MON
VI tnas omcer upon II. On last Monday the claims
he a
charged from their further consideration the
action OF the board being based upon an oninion
nom the Corporation Attorney who holds that the
Corporation Is not liable His letter is ss fooyyS
OFFick OF CORPORATION ATTORNEY
ga September rs, 1860
Sir: Your letter Of the Sd instant was receiyyed
al thls once during my absence from the city; and
Oh my return ] hasten To reply to It. ~
The petitions of John f. Wolf and Alfred p
Edeiln proceed upon the assumption that in every
case OF private trespass accom- panied by breach OF
tie peace within the corporate Limits tbs civ "a
liable for the damages So suffered
One OF the petitioners describes the injury In h q
house az having been committed bv .ln ,oob >,
ana the othef complains OF the destruction of his
30 far as these petitioners are CONCERNED botb
cases appear to be instances Of private tresnass
with more or less Of aggravation and violence
me question is whether this Corporation is
haote In snch eases! IL action lies for dams yes
sustained from injury to real or personal proreTtv
see no reason why II would not be in every case
OF broken head or battered body occurring In
any part OF the city at any part Of the night when
snch injury might have been prevented by the
timely appearance Of a body Of police But this
latter conclusion is nanifesily absurd
me Idea that the Corporation acting in rood
iath ior the preser walton Of order and the security
OF Persons and property, ia to be held as an i'm.
surf against every loss occasioned within its
limits by lawiess violence, Is who'll inadmisslble
question has been made as to such responsibility
where The MARY has resulted immediately from
puoilc NUISANCE, culpably permitted by the
niuhlclpai authorities, having power and means
70 prevent 1T and il is only upon this ground Of
nuisance that any plausible case can be made
bW .ne petitioners make no such case. Aud If
saey aia, cannot ADOPT the opinion that the city
government Is liable where the act Complained
% - one which they have not procured or author
Hed expressly, or by clear implication.
. l pom the whole, think that the petitioners re
NOT entited to the relief they ask; and, whatever
may De the hardship Of their cases, cannot con.
sem sen 70 De instrumental in making precedent OF
very respectfully, your obedient servant.
B r. McNERHANy, Esq,
E - Chairman Committee, &c
. -.S-- Board OF Aldermen