Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1862-1865, 1863-05-22
OPINION.

am asked to advise tue Council whether the city is
liable for property destroyed by rioters and il there is
no such liability whether in my opinion, the Council
has the right, under the charter of the city, assume
and pay claims for such property
SIT is not assumed in the terms of the question that
there has been any neglect of duty the part of the
officers Of the city in preventing suPpressihg the riot
which occasiOned the loss complained Of but the naked
INQUIRY is in effect whether asstrer of all the prop.
erty within s territorial limits against injuries by yO-
lence committed by mobs and rioters, the city is
responsible for such INJURIES recently done here and
understanding it, have hesitation in giving an
swer in the negative There is nothing, certainy, in
the character aud objects Of municipal corporation
which this city isl TO create such liability. 1t is
Tsublic body 10 which is vested portion of the civil
mower of the State to be exercised for the purpo-
ses of local government through its several branch
es legislative executive and udica-a kind of inperi-
I'M az Misunderstanding in miniature in its relations
with the local constituent body the government of the
State itself in lis relations with the great body Of the
people Its business is TO institute and enforce all pro.
per measures according to the prescriptions and ita-
lions of its charter for the good government of the
CITY; and when tat is done with the best judgment 8
members can bring to the task, their functions APP
propriately discharged and at end. For its proper
performance they are, like tue members of the State
Government amenable TO popular censure at the polls
and in cases OF wu and corrupt misconduct TO cmi-
prosecution. Among the numerous provisions of the
charter find nothing express or implied to warrant the
idea that such liability exisIs have met with any
reported case or ext-wrer which recognizes any such
incident as pertaining to corporate municipal bodies
Thus in the case OF Prather vs. the city of Lexington
QSth B. Monroe 559) in which il was sought 10 make
the city liable for injuries to property within its limits
committed by laWless mob, the Court say: awe know
of no principle of law that subjects municipal corpo-
ration to sbty for the safety Of the property
within its. territorial limits, nor has any case been
cited in which such a principle has been recog-
med or established. If such a liability exists,
what is its nature and e1tentY Does il afford protec.
ton against the acts Of the ncendi5ry and the mdngl
depredatOr OILY against the violence of lawless
mob! If against the latter only, whence the dis
tinctohS All the acts may be alike Injurious and il
the corporation must the property Of its menu
bers in all events against all unlawful violence, there
no room for discrimination, but similar liability would
exs; in each of the mentioned. There is nothing
in the nature design Of municipal corporation that
imposes such duty upon H. The chief purpose Of such
an institution is the adoption of such of po-
lice as will promote the cOmfoft convenience and
ofa welfare of the inhabitants within the city, and by
local laws adapted TO the condition of dense popula
ton to impart efficiency to the local government. -
Again: the necessity which felt in England for spe
cial legislation on this subject and by which such LA
bility has been imposed on local communities hun
dreds, towns and cities, shows that by common law
(which in this instance is ours was not incidental to
common muricpa bodies, as such. From an early Pc
riod in the English Ia, the hundreds into which the
couuties divided we're by statutes made liable to
persons robbed within their limits, under certain crcum-
stances in damages equivalent to the loss sustained
these ensotments have been greatly extended in mod
e1n times in their scope and objects until now, by the
riot act the black act it is called and others similar
thore is scarcely any injury to property committed in
violent and tumultqeus manner, that may not be re-
dressed in that country by action against the hundred
To these may be added the 57th Geo. ILL., Oh. 49, sec
Ss, against injuries By tumutuous assemblies, making
the ety or toSn LIABLE not within hundred But We
have no such legislation here.
do not know that it Is claimed by those who ask
ing redress by aha city for losses incd By the ate
rc that hose losses have arisen from the failure of tie
Council 70 take proper measures or of the officers Of
the ci.y properly and faithfully exert themselves to
prevent and suppress the ROT but in neither aspect Of
tho case do consider the city liable The Council IL
4 Evs. b. The CRrtae aust "adOpt msAaufss TO SqP'