Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-10-14
The MnrI.efhnnse.

The act OF the Legislature of North Car
oliua Of 1874, creating the city of Nash
vile, leaves no doubt that the title to the
Square is vested in the Mayor and City
Council, as successors of the trustees desig-
mated in that act; and that they hold the le-
gal title in trust for the purposes specified
in the act; and that the county of Davidson
has beneficial interest on the Square for
the purpose of ERECTING public buildings
neces ,ary for the administration of Justice,
and the management of county finances;
and though the legal title be in the Mayor
and Common Council, neither the County
Court, nor the city authorities, can erect
nuisance upon it, or do any act prejudicid
to the trusts created in the act of 1854.
The city authorities at one time passed on
ordinance "Forbidding the erection of a
horse rack or place for hitehing horses on
the Public square, or streets, or alleys ofthe
City," and enforced the act by penalty.
Under the order of the County Court, there
were erected on the Public square, outside
the brick wall enclosure around the Court
House, racks or hitching posts, sufficient
for the htching of several hundred horses.
One of the persons who erected the racks,
was sued for the penalty, and, though plead
ing the authority Ofthe County Court, was
convicted, and, on appeal to the Supreme
| Court, the judgment was affirmed. The
Supreme Court lin 1861 said 'that all the
| title of the trustees appointed by the Legis-
lature of North Carolina, passed from Thorn
| TO the CITY authorities, with the trusts crea-
| ted by the act of 1874. That the County Of
Davidson had beneficial interest in the
! four acres, as seat fora Court House, and,
as incident to this, the County Court must
I have such powers over it as are
necessary for the safe and convenient en-
| ioyment of that right. OF this the County
Court could not be deprived by the city
| authorities. But on the other hand, the in
cidental powers of the County Court could
not be so exercised as to inflict a nuisance
on the citizens. sit is not material says
the Supreme Court, ''whether the nuisance
be erected by an individual or corporation.
| the power to prevent it or ahate it must re-
| side in the local authorities. 1t is not ma
terial whether the title to the square be in
county, or the city, or neither. Ii the title
was in the county, it would have no more
right to erect nuisance than an individual
lot owner or a private corporation, as a
bank, owning lot. So the ownership Of
the ground cannot affect the question.
Every man or corporation must so use their
own property as not to injure others. A
! nuisance would have this effect, and there
fore may be prohibited" 1t was declared
that the County Court had no authority to
authorize the erection of horse rack on the
square, that it was nuisance under the
city ordinance, and the County Court had
no authority to sanction and legalize a
nuisance. Neither has the city authorities
a right to sanction and legalize nuisance
on the square.
The Chancery Court must decide wheth-
er the erection of forty or fifty shelters, of
the yilest character, on the square; the
weekly gathering of herds of live stock, and
long trains of wagons loaded with wood,
hay and lumber and provisions, standing
about in more confusion than ever charac-
terized the baggage wagons of retreating
army, with the howl and scream and roar
of auctions-whether or not this constitutes
a nuisance. For ourselves we shall cheer
fully submit TO the judgment of the Chan
Gerry Court. 1t has been supposed by some
persons that the removal Of this scene OF
confusion would injure the Public Square
We feel deep anxiety in the prosperity Of
every part of the city, and We feel that We
can not do a greater benefit to the property
holders on the square than by the removal
of the markethouse and its system of sales,
1t can be made most elegant and attrac-
tive place for public assemblies, and for the
business men of the city and State.