Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-11-18
The Fifieenth-street Improvement,
R-GsOns lghy Judge McArihur Refused the In
5ffDct;cn

0SCtS Nhy Jucyc McArhur accused the Ia
7hnctsEn.
In yesterdays STAR We published the pro-
ceed'ngs in the Equity Court in the case of
COrcoran and Others against the Corporation o.
Washington, for an injunction to stop the in.
provement in progress on 18th street, stating
that Judge Macarthur refused the motion Tor
an Injunction. As there are points involved
which may apply 70 future cases, we refer to
the matter again to-day in order to Law be-
fore cur readeIs the views which intiuenc ed
the Court In coming TO this decision.
POWER OF TIE CORPORATION OVER THE
STREETS.
Judge Macarthur said that from the view he
had OF the authority of the civ, he could OF
consider whether the city had Ised its poWers
with prudence. He had already iutimated that
the city had plenary authority with regard u
the streets. he thought that wlen the alter a.
ton Of street grade Is dem cod by the pub &c
convenience, no court could int. rierc with il.
III would be strange If Washington sere left
without authority over this subject. There was
10 public function of .featcl impoI .ance than
that III respect 10 public highways, because not
only citizens but strangers had a remedy
against the city for any neglect. They, there
lore, were endowed with every power 70 rep ,ir
&c change the streets. and this was a cont 1u-
Gus power, with no limit but the judrment OF
the city authorities. The only restriction, were
up on tie mode In v hich the power is exercised
MET WORK BIZ LET 40 rHR Low EsT BIDDKs
BE Charter OF most cities quire the pubic
work should be let to the loves bidder but
Congress bad not made such provisions IN the
city charter OF WasbiDsto ton. 10 be sure, a ciiy
ordinance bad been quoted, but that ordinance
was repealed 70 that extent by the act which
prosiL ed Tor this special case. They might have
judged II prudent in this case to ADOPT the mode
,haf they have in the ordinance. At all events
they hare exercised the power by directing the
Superintendent OF Streets to execute the work,
ana the Mayor to pay for il.
APPE9vAL OF BILLS BY THK MAYOR.
In regard to the ordinance itself there was
some confusion. The law requires the ordi-
rances OF the city to be approved by the Mayor,
or II ne falls % approve them to return them
with mis- objectiors within nve da,s No form
II spprovai y required, and whether his siKna-
turs Is necsS 'ary TO sis njty approval might q
question OF consider able importlDoe: but in
to's case the work was not begun until the i've
days had expired, at the end OF which time the
ACT mad become law Whether the Mayor had
approved 1t or not. H., no yever, DAD not con-
slider these ordinances before the court, for be-
ing private ORC nancc3. they had Lot been spe-
eIally pleaded. But he thought he would not
be doing justice UulC-s he r. ok thee ordinan
under consideration, and hs would consider
them before the court for the purpose or max
ing decision of the whole case.
THE POWER OF TBE CITY NOT LIMITED BY THE
ACT OF 1853.
he diG not think that the act OF 1853 which
gave the engineer of the United States Army
power over the streets, limited the general
lower or the city over the streets. He supt osed
that when an individual wanted to get permits
s!on 10 grade the streets, the law designated
l Mted States officer to whom they should ap-
of tue city.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS
As TO the appointment OF assistant commits
Sloners, he did not see that the Ordinances re-
CURED IT, and especially this ordinance, which
wss perfect in itself.
FRiVATE INTERESTS MUST GIVE WAY TO GEN.
ERAL ONES.
lie Gid not know what stress was laid upon
the fact that q change Of grade wss injuriou. to
bulldln % erected on a former grade. but gem
eIal interests must always be sou ynt, though
IrV.te Interests should suffer, and the city ad
the right % exercise ia oW power in the man
ner witch was thought best. The injuries if
Fry, could he compensated by damages, ard
t5ey formed no ground for the interference o.
q oUtt Of C4uiIy b. an injunction. The mo-
tor %. an irjuEctiOn was therefore denied with
rE-sud'Oe - pie niifs to file a new bill.