Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1872-03-27

Factory. and no one had carried that case e
the Courts. He was in favor OF passing the
act now.
Mr.. Hopkins could not vote for the bill unde
his oath to support the State Constitution. :,
Mr.. Wheat suggested that the bill be amend
ed so as to avoid the constitutional objection
1t was suggested that this could only be done
by making nugatory the bill.
When the vote was called,
Mr.. Shinn apd Mr. Hopkins announced
themselves in favor of the bill, but said thai
they could not vote for an act which the Con;
stitution of the State prohibited. They had
sworn to support that Constitution.
The bill was not adopted:
MIR. Hopkins Introduced Il resolution that
the opinion Of The Corporation Attorney be
published
Mr.. Hughes opposed the publication saying
that the rejection Of the act had already done
harm enough. it was no use to do more harm
by publishing this opinion.
The resolution was not agreed to.
Mr. Hopkins introduced resolution for
lease of part of the market square to Aexan,
dria Washington Lodge Mr. Fl. explained
that this was in accordance With an agreement
made by the old Council
The resolution was agreed to.
The following memorial was presented and
referred to the Committee on Streets with
power to act:
Hon. C;y Council Of 4lcran1ria
GENTLEMEN The undersigned tax. payers,
residing on South Columbus street and its VI
ciuity, beg leave most respectfully to call atten,
ton to the almost lmpassable condition OF SAID
street, that portion at least extending from
Gibbon to Franklin streets, and pray your
Honorable Body to take immediate steps Tor
the remedying Of the same. Not wishing TO
annoy your Honorable Body with our complaint,
we have heretofore submitted. with as much
patience as we could summon, to the condition
Of things, but they have now become SO distress
ing that we are constrained to cry ont, Tome
over to Macedonia and help U.s.! Trusting
that you will order promptly for our relief, we
subscribe ourselves most truly your obedlent
servants; Owen Carroll and Others.
Mr.. Hughes said that the division OF the city
into wards was so inequitabe that he could not
but call attention to it.
Nlr. Pinn also spoke of the ward bill as in-
equitable.
Mr.. Hopkins explained that the last change
in the wards was made to cqualize population.
This act was intended to equalize property.
The Second Ward, for instance, which was the
smallest in population, was he largest IN amount
of taxes naid Even under the proposed act
the Collector OF the Northern district would
have the larger portion Of the taxes to collect
The act W IS paced on the calendar under
the rule.
Mr. Hopkins upon the city street railroad
bill comming up) said that he would like to
move to refer that bill to the Corporation At
toruey, but after the discourteSy shown that
officer in refusing to publish his opinion he was
iI!-incIired to do so.
Mr. Shinu Qeaving the chair said that the
opinion ought 10 have been published.
Mr. Beach desired to ask if discourtesy to
the Corporation Attorney was before the Board.
Mr. Shinn claimed the right to preface the
resolution which he proposed to offer in any
manner he thought proper. He moved that
the bill he referred to the Corporation Attor-
ney for his opinion. Mr.. Smith had spent
several days in the law library at the Capitol,
consulting authorities as to the opinion, that
Council had refused to publish, and Mr.. s.
did not intend to charge a cent for it.
Mr. Hughes d>clamed any intention in OPP
posing the publication. of being dscourteous 10
he Corporation Attorney.
Mr. Shun-Idid not attribute any improper
motive? Ply 70 the member, ner:s,s only motive
the fear that the publication would 'nJure THE
city.
Mr. Hopkins-Am allowed to make per
sonal explanation?
The President-Ies sir
Mr.. Hopkins then said that he had no inten-
ton in any thing he had said to mpugn the
motives of the members of Council
MIR. Beach said that he had been Informed
that it was usual to publish law opinions, and
he desired that no discourteSy whatever should
be offered the Corporation Attorney. He,
therefore, would move a reconsideration OF the
vote.
Mr.. Clagett was unwilling to run Council to
an expense of $40 or $50 to publish this opln-
ion, for he did not believe that snch expense
should be incurred.
MIR. Beach said that he made the motion
only because the refusal Of Council might seem
dscourteous to the Corporation Attorney, WHO
was young man OF ability. ~ =.
Mr.. Evans had voted against the publication
of the document because he did not think II
would be any credit to the Attorney and would
cost the city something. =,
Mr. Pinn said his vote was controlled by the
belief that the publication Of the opinion would
niure the city As to the views which mem
bers had expressed with regard to their oaths,
he said my oath was to support 1t to the best OF
abiltv-the way | understand lt;and II other
Corporations can exempt then We can do So
The motion to reconsider was lost.
Mr.. Henderson was opposed to inviting MIR.
Wise. If he wanted to come here and speak
let him do so, and people who desired might
go and hear him.
Mr.. Wheat thought the resolution was very
unusual and set bad precedent.
Mr.. Evans would suggest that Mrs. Dr.
Mary Walker be invited to lecture:
The resolution was not concurred 10.
The bill repeating all acts in relation to fore
stalliug the market coming up,
Mr.. Hughes thought that the present act IN
relation to forestaIling was injurious to the city
Farmers came here from the country, with no
time to retail their stock, and were compelled to
90 on tow ashingtou because Alexandrians wei
not allowed to buy. As a consequence very
much trade was lost to the city, The bill tor
forestaGng was in accordance with the ideas OF
three hundred years ago. As, the law stood
the couptryman came to market and would
stand here with bushel of potatoes and sell
half peck, when he could be better employed
at home, and more probably: AS 1t was, ID
stead of getting fresh vegetables, by the law,