Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-12-12
Hsmilier et al. vs.. the Mayer. &c, Of
GeessetowB.

/ Hemt1er et al. vs.. the Mayer. AC., Of
I GeesSetown
| G,ntre! Ts,a, o-tobsr, Is5-Suprsz. conr.
Di.tyie: IF cs.1n6.a.
TBB HuToRKR's cAss-oPrNEos or TIE Court
BY NE .JusTlcB wyLIR
We published some oSys since brief his
| tery OF the controversy cet ween ne Corpo.s-
tom Of Georsetoun and he pr0prietors OF Tue
Bntchers Market, IN thst city, who es .aslishea
their make house in opposition 20 the new
structure erected for market purposes By The
| n unicipsl authoriues there. The matter was
| brought before the Supreme Court Of 10 Dis
| trict OF Ool umoIS, Snd decision vas gwen =
few days since xdverse 20 me bateners, Of
which an bstract was pp oiisned In the SrAs
| a. he time. As the question is important
one, Inyolpioe the power Of city corporate so.
thoriiies, in establishing and regulstine mar
Kets, IN granting or refusing licen ees 10 green
grocers, and other points Of iat.rekt. we nave
yielded 10 the REQ uuest OF many OF cur readers,
| and lay before them o.dsy fuli report of ne
| opinion OF Judge Wylie, as follows
The controversy, an this case. &c lvolves.
mainly, the Ques ton 70 the swf1I power OF
the Corporation 70 .-estaelish and regulate
markets'' within It's limits, TO the ex elnsson Of
mat power on the part prsvaia iadi vsan ais.
In the year 1853. the Cor porauop OF George
town iound Il necessary TO pull down. snd re-
move the old markes house, which had been
used for PERIOD of more than fiity years. and
had fallen much iAto decay, and 10 erect q new
one, ON the same site. Wailst tins work was
| In progress, the Corporation leased from as
owners, large building, known as the Old
Tobacco Warehouse, ana fitted IL CD a. q mar
ke: building, and there the markets Were held
All the new ma Ret house was comple,ed. Ia
the year IesS, the butchers paying Tor the use
OF the stalls, and for their licenses, as former
| ~. About this time the Corporsuon began tor
the hrst time 20 issue licenses 70 persons ira
dlns as green grocers," which autho-izsd
| them 70 sellfresh meats, &e, in any part of ne
toWn- Any one who chose coulS obtaIn The
Incense oy pay ipg tae Tee. >le 81. The fee for
ahuichsr's license was 81 q year. Toe ne "
building being co1pleied, the Corporation
gave up the use OF the Tobacco Warehouse,
ana directed that maTke-s should thereafter
De held an I.-e old place. But the butchers de.
clined 70 return. and, themselves, purchased
the Iooacco Warehouse, at q cost OF s)S.5Og,
and fitted IL up Cor the contin uance OF their
bus mess, a. an additional cost OF 5000
ana claimed the right 20 establish their
owp market, ana coaduct their or. business
IN that place, under their license as green gro
GERS ano this was probably their right, a. tnat
time. The Corporation then advanced the fee
for green erocer's license 70 eighty doIIars,
while that for a butcher was liked h only forty
IN the expectation that this difference might
lnouce the butchers 70 20 70 the new market
But the policy was failure; foT the butchers
preferred to remain, ana carry their busi-
ness On their own properly. calling themseIyr.
green grocers. Bnt on the Let of May last, the
corporation passed IN ordinance which pro-
hioited the granting or licenses to green gro
GERS, in any cases whatsoever. But even tnis
has, thus far, failed OF It's object, the butch
ers, since then, have remained at their ware
mousse, and continued 10 carry on their bust
ness, without q license OF any kind This was
violation OF an ordinance OF the Corporation
lor which these conpiainants, well as other
butchers, have been prosecuted and iaed, ana
numerous cases OF a similar char acter are now
pending before the Justices of the Peace an
Georgetown, aw aiting o ur decision IN this: and
as the violation OF the law OF the Corporauon
IN this respeci IL OF daily renewal, fresh proee-
eutions are likely TO be multiplied. Under
tnese circumstances, the comp. ainants, for
themselves, as well as tor the other butchers,
having common interest with them. have
hled this bill, in which they pray as follows:
"Tnat the said Corporation may be REQ uired
70 appear and answer the alterations OF the
bill, and may be enloined from prosecpuns
furfner suits for fines and penalties till the
question Of right Is settled by the courts; that
censes, as heretofore; or, that canpOt he
done, be decreed 70 pay all losses and damages
and expenditures in purchase OF property and
nne ,'smee ~ ~ IoI me business OF green grocers,
The preceding statement OF facts presents
tne case made In compliments biII as it is,
stripped OF Inc numerous rmpediments and
accidents, which have gathered around il. and
which tend only TO produce confusion We
shall, presently, however, examine ihese, ana
see " hat they are werth
As new presented, the case is before Us on
complainant's motion for an injunction, as set
out In the prayer Of their pll, the whole OF
argued and submitted, on the ILL., the amended
blu, the answers OF defendant TO both these
and me exhibits All the facts which we deem
OF material consequence, IH the controversy
are admitad by both sides. There are Others
deemed material by the comp lain an ts but these
are an positively met and denied by the de-
PENDANTS answers; ana for the purposes OF this
decision must, therefore, be taken To be riutrue
The power TO establish and regulate markets'
was expressly granted by Congress in the char
TER OF Georgetown, and the validity OF the
grant cannot be Questioned
1he nature, and the extent, of this power
VIII oe understood from the following passage
IN 6iacketone-"With us. in England, the
Kings prerogati We, 90 far as II relates 10 mere
domestic commerce, Will fall, principally IN.
Ger the foLowinR articles: first, the establish
mgnr sas OF puShe marts, or places Of ouyins, ana
tolls thereunto belonging. These can only be
set mp oy virtue Of the Kings grant, or by long
nrssnnnesn .nas usage AND prescription which
public resorts to such time and such place. as may
De most convenient for the neighbornooo, forms
bs abars OF tne economies, or domestic policy,
which considering the kingdom as a large
family, and the king as the master OF IL, ne.
clearly mas right to dispose, and order IS he
Coke, also, says q Inst 2aO) "None can have
fair, or market,b but by grant or prescription"
Ihe rignt therefore to establish and regu-
late its markets, and the time, 'ts manner, and
the place, thereof, is unq uestion able, and is ex.
elusive. The Corporation itself is the ultimate
aroitsr on the question 10 the convenience of
,ne nme and place for its markets. II the se-
lection OF these, made by the organized au-
tnorities OF the town be ineonvenint to The peo.
| pie, that is q complaint whose redress is with
tne people themselves, in the choice OF their
own omcers and agents, and not in the courts
Ihe site which may be most con venient fer
one portion of the population, will certainly
pe announcement TO some other portion. They
must decide the question amongst Themselves
| by vote, and the minority must submit TO the
inconvenience which is Inevitable TO some
Whatever may be the place selected. How
could court decide such q matter as this
which involves no question OF Rights de-
| MED. or ssWrongs'' inflicted or threatened,
There, probably, does not exist in thSs coun-
| try, or any other, city, or s borough, whose
market has been established on the precise SPOT
| Of land, which its courts would say was the
most con venient for its population, or whose
market buildings are constr ucted according 70
| the most convenient plans. But that fact has
never been deemed enough to authorize their
| courts 10 select better sites and build better
market houses for them It is quite true that
Corporations like individuals are ameuabIe 10
the courts, but the complainant must hayea
case proper for judicial coenizance; and unless
he have for himself individually, a rieht 10
maintain, or wrong to b redressed, or pre.
vented, he can obtain no aid from q court even
agatnsta Corporation. Ii he b. only q vol
nntsel champion for the public. on q question
OF mere convenisnce or ineon venience. he W1li
lose his suit. ~ E sar-. a m - -
Beyond that question, the present bill makes
NO Charge againet the defendant II makes
no accusation OF breach Of charter, trust or
conuact, none of fraud, abuse. or violation
OF authority. nor even OF interested motives on
the part OF aLy one of the cOrporate of5fcars in