Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-01-05
LOCAL NEWS.
The Injunction Case.

Mayor, Boards OF Aldermen and Uouneil and
Register of Washington, was heard in cham
bers before Chief Justice Cartier, William A
Cook, Of Greensboro, Pa, chief clerk of the
nee, appearing for the complainants, and Jos
II. Bradley and j. j. Coombs, Esqs., for the
respondents.
1t will be reeollected that this bill WAS filed
| after the late election at which there was such
an overwhelming majority against negro suf-
frage, to restrain the corporation from paying
the expenses of said election, and the bearing
attracted quite crowd of spectators, Including
several members OF the city councils.
hr. Bradley acknowledged the ser vice Of the
/ which sets forth that the complainaats are and
have been, citizens and TAX ID ayers of washing
| ton, and that they have an interest in any eI-
penuituree on account of said city: that CON-
gress has exclusive jurisdiction over the city
of Washington, and that the powers conferred
by the charter Of said city are limited and spe-
clal, and that the emily elections authorized are
for Mayor and members of the CITY Councils
| and that they have no authority to anthor
Ize an election for political purposes or in
reference to the extension of the franchise 70
persons OF color; that in disregard of the char
ter and of the laws of Congress the Councils
authorized a special election TO be held; that
such election was held; that the regular Judges
of general elections were authorized to act and
that TO pay the expenses of said election money
paid for taxes was TO be used thus misusing
said money and creating necessity for addf-
uonal taxation.
The bill further sets forth that at a meeting
of the Board of Aldermen on the 18th of De-
cember, 1865, resolution was adopted author
1ZIng the Secretary Of said Board TO have $40
copies of the speech of Thos. T.. Lloyd, Esq,
in opposition 10 negro suffi age, printed for the
use of the members of the said board, and that
the SAID Council intended to appropriate a sum
of money out of taxes collected and designed
Tor other purposes, 10 pay the expense of print
ing said speech. The complainants therefore
pray that an order may issue restraining the
SAID Councils from making any appropriation
for the purposes aforesaid; and, also, that the
Mayor and the City Register may be enioined
not TO pay such moneys.
Mr.. Bradley said that he understood that de-
positions had been taken, showing that the or
dinance was passed, the election held, &c, and
that the bill would speak for itself, rs also the
returns. These were matters of record, and
admitted by the respondents, and in this re-
spect it was prinsa facie case. After admit
ting the facts alleged in the bill to be true, he
proposed TO show why the Injunction should
not issue. The position taken by the respond
ents was the same as If demurrer had been
made.
In answer to a suggestion of the Court as TO
the order OF discussion, MIR. Bradley said the
respondents were in the position as having de-
INJURED TO the bill
The dispositions taken in the case having
been produced, Mr.. Bradley stated that if they
were merely conhrmatory OF the allegations
contained in the bill, he was prepared to admit
all the facts contained therein.
Mr.. Cook proposed to read the dispositions,
when Judge Cartier said he could not under
stand how the dispositions could make
stronger case de hoTs the bill than was in it, if
the allegations contained in the bill were ad-
mitted TO be true. If the dispositions do show a
stronger case than the bill, they could not be
incorporated in it
Mr Cook-True; but the dispositions will add
keenness and force to bill
The Court-Then the depositions are only
explanatory Of the bill.
Mr.. Cook said they would prove nothing
more, but they would convey to the mind of a
chancellor that the facts as stated were true.
Mr. Bradley again proposed TO admit all the
allegations contained in the bill. ..-- .
MT Cook prsesedsd 70 read the deiaositions
OF Er-RRyes and Mr.. Pope, Secretaries of the
Board OF Aldermen and Board of Common
Council, to the effect that appropriations had
been made TO pay the expenses Of the special
election, and also the expense of printing Mr..
T. T.. Lloyd's speech, when
Mr.. Coombs objected. He said they had come
there TO meet and answer the allegations as set
forth in this bill, and they We're prepared to
show that the court had no power to RESTRAIN
the Board OF Aldermen and Board Of Common
Council from any legislative action. They
came TO meet the bill, which prayed for an in
junction to restrain the oppTopridtion of money,
and therefore the affidavits were objected TO.
The complainant has right TO produce affida-
Wits TO show that the allegations set forth in his
bill are true, but he cannot enlarge the allega-
uons by any extraneous matter
The Court said he understood the bill to set
forth that il was the intention of the Councils
TO pay the expenses of the election.
Mr.. Coombs said the dill was defective If the
affidavits Were admitted, for there is nothing
made, and the counsel must dismiss his bill or
commence over, for the prayer was for an in
junction to prevent the Councils from making
an appropriation.
The Court said the affidavits, he unders TODD,
did not appertain to the bill; but were explana-
tory of its purposes.
Mr. Bradley said that as he understood the
bill it was to restrain the Councils from making
any appropriation hereafter for the payment Of
the expenses of the election.
Mr.. COombs argued that an Injunction TO pre-
vent the payment ofmoney was one thing, and
TO prevent an appropriation to pay money was
another. He was here to answer the second
question, and TO show that il was not in the
power Of the court TO enjoin actions proposed
TO be done in a legislative capacity; and now
the complainant brings outside evidence 10
meet deficiency in this bill He was pre-
pared to meet the prayer TO restrain the appro-
priation of money by the Councils. II the ap-
preparations have already been made, why
this action In such an event il was only
necessary 10 enjoin the Treasurer or Register
OF the city; but this bill was for the purpose of
restraining legislation. If there has been no
legislation, then there is no reason TO apprehend
payment. The counsel must take some def
mite position, and if he has come here with a
mlseraoly deiectve bill, the respondent is not
here 10 meet it. He must make a case before it
can be met
Mr.. Bradley argued that, as the bill con-
tanned no averment of legislative action, the
affidavit could net be admitted. If legislative
action had been had, then the proper prayer
would be TO restrain the Register. The court
could not interfere with legislative ?ctioB, but
it could restrain the executive from making the
law effective
Mr. Cook said it had well been said that
dredging amid technicalities, in the eye of the
law and in the keen glance of a chancellor, is
odious. The city is represented by the re-
spondents, who either did or did not authorize
an election beyond the range Of the charter
under which they act. II they did so, they
either appropriated money to defray the ex-
pense of the election or they did not. Whether
IT is their design to make the appropriation is
an important inquiry; and this design is spe-
cifically charged in the bill as against a por-
ton Of the respondents who are members of
the two boards. Mr.. Cook proceeded to argue
that the design was not consummated, as the
expense had not yet been paid, and therefore
the design OF portion of the city authorities
was uRexecuted. The bill was correct and
the affidayits proposed to be introduced were
proper as proving the allegation of the bill.
But this is not all. The bill looks upon the
representatives of the people as acting without
authority, and he (Mr. Cook would not hes
ltate TO say that what was termed legislation
in this case had no essence of legislation in IL.
Legislation implies proper persons 10 legislate
ard proper subject matter, but in this case il
will appear that the members of the councils
had recklessly disregarded the provisions of
the charter. 30.