Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-12-12
'Op.rp sns ntsiss II t,r ne .. si..se;er-. n

property sna ntius it f,r me oI Isile-s o. er-,p
erocers, while licensed IS such"
whAi risnt baye they % make this densnd
Is The Oorporatlon 10 De reqatr,-d "a psy hem
damages thus incurred ey their own folly. OF
oosgsnsacy, OF carelessness, or determined de-
hanes OF iis own lawful an horlty. and in tue
fece OF notice, and, In fact aciuSl knowledge.
that tie " srshOUse Wa not % be a marke'-
house sny longer than vss requires o r.plas
he old enc, which hsd .Oeen removed Be-
sices, they have made no allegation, an their
eill, hat they have suneTed, or can sursr.
any loss by tbsir purchAse or improvemen'e
ano ve are bound. therefor, 70 prssame raat
they have, In fact made q profit by them.
The new r1arket-bouse mas cost the Corpo-
ranon more han bfsy thousand dOllars, az 4
emp claimants cay would yield q revenge OF
over four thousand dollars q year from sail
iehts, BESIDES the premiums on leases. which
an the TINE OF The OLE market amounted 10
aooet the same som. but In conseQuenee OF
has attempt on The part OF the baichers, %
6 aoilsn toer own marke-, this revenue, Tor
the hall year immediatsly preceding the ming
OF this bill, had been reduced % the sun u
only S2M.
AZ mus be obvious that IN, nrasant ~ . x,,,,
struggle. III the butchers succeed. the pog
Of the Corporation - % establisn and resul.tss
tie marker, is practically dead. The marset
fSr vegetables, pouliry. ana other couatrv
products, would b. drawn % hat OF he oatch-
ers: he power OF the Corporation for 10. pre-
vention ano luEishmsnt OF fra0ds IN its mar-
kets could no lon ser be exerted, and the pnh.c
would ee made the victim Of fal-e weights AnA
measures. INV hoiesOme provisi and all tn-
other numerous contriyances, which woald
spring into activity m = crowded mart. wtih
no police inspection. and cond ucied accord ing
10 naepenoent rriRciples, and on the rascsliy
msxim OF csveat emptor.
Another objection urged BY complaiasnns
against the Corporation market ls- thai ~ has
been constructed according 10 a plan which
denies sufhciency OF room for the az
eomnodation OF the public, and that
their own tobacco warehouse ts much
larger, more airy, ana better arrsneea.
Tins rs denied by the answer OF the d-feadauf,
which sets out that its marvellous h.
ample in dimensions 10 tOsccommocate the whole
business OF be town; aud IS constructed on Ibe
plan Of the Farmers Market OF Pniladelphis
except That IT'S aisles are consfdersofy wider
than those OF that market, and that this plan
was adcpted, a. the best. after a commitse.
appointed by the Councils fOr that purpose
had VISITED all the prizcIpa cities OF toe NorIn
had personally examined the market houses
there, and had consulted wfth, and obtaiped
the opinions and plans OF several experiences
and sklllful architects, ana reported All their
information to the Councils.
One other objection sui remains, uamely
mat The Corporati maTket-house en- .roa chss
on one OF the public streets OF the town, ex-
tending four feet on either side, beyond the
line OF the former building. aad being, for
that reason. a public nuisance. com plainanrs
cannot De ftghtioliy required 70 hold market
IN such place.
These allegations are also denied by The de-
fendants answer. But if they were true, tnev
would involve an issue into which we eould
not inquire In the present suit
the inquiry would he collateral in the present
case; and must he made the SUBJECT Of dis
tinct and indepen jent proceeding, instituted
by the proper authority, TO test that issue, and
no other. SO long as n IS suffered 70 stsnd,
these complainanis cannot be made liable
either ciyIlIy, or criminslly. for transactlng
their business there. The Corporation alone 10
liable for its continuance Whatever pros
nes are instituted for its aba cement must Os
against the Corporation. Coke says, ~ IasJ,
fO6) eli patent for a fair or market be 20 the
nuisance, IL may be repealed by scire fcctes''
II 10 the same principle which has be-u cf,en
applied In suits by Corporations, where The
Courts have denied 70 defendants the privilege
OF showing that the plaintiffs had vioia,sd and
forfelted their charters. Nor Is IL go clear.
either, that the Corporation OF Georgetown
m ght not, if It preferred, establish Its lnarket
place even IN one OF It's public streets. bu. as
tn that II IS not necessary 70 express
opinion.
Defendant has, BY ITS answer, objec'ed 20 our
Jorisd iction over this case, on the ground ma
complainants had a full and complete remedy
at law, which they Were al liberty 70 Sc. a.
and have decided upon, IN the suits agalns.
them by the Corporation for the recovery OF
the dnes. But that, we think. would afrord
but q very Inadequate remedy In a controversy
like this, involving, as IL does, a great null
uplicity OF suits, expensive aud vexatious llti-
cation, delay OF justice, aud 10 the meantime
Insreasne injury 20 both public and private in
teres sts: and have, therefore, assumed jnrisdic-
ton over the controversy and the parties"