The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-03-10
TIE CITY RAILWAY LICENSE.
An Opinion by Recorder Prinsles


Among the vexed questions which nave
been raised by the recent passage OF Inc clty
license law for 1873 was the question OF the
power of the City Council to Impose license
fee OF more than $500 upon the City Railway
Company. The law as passed by the council
REQUIRED from the company 500 for each OF
the ten or more cars which they employ, out
the company claim that the Council has no
authority 10 require q license fee OF more than
$500 from any single individual or company.
On this point Mayor Wagner has requested
the opinion of the city recorder. which
has been given, and which fully sustains The
sctIoa of the City Council. The recorder
quotes the act of March lst, 1870, (Statute
4O9, J which in Its seventh section, provided
the. the "Clfy Council of Charleston was au-
thorized 10 require the payment OF such
sum or sums money not exceeding five hun.
dred dollars, for license or licenses as In their
Judgment be Just and wise, by any person or
persons engaged or Intending to be engaged
In any calling, business or profession, In whole
or In part, Within the limits of the City of
Charleston, except those engaged In the calling
or profession OF teacher of public or private
schools and Minister of the Gospel" He then
| says:
It would seem that the object of this section
of the act OF 1870 was 10 silence the objections
which had been made to the right of the city
| to pass general license law. For from the
earliest times there had been an authorized
and unuueslioned right OF the city 10 demand
payment for license. lst, from persons en-
gagged In certain kinds OF business, ana "a,
| from persons using or keeping certain Klnos
of property. OF the first class were licenses
reduirsd frem persons engaged In business aS
retailers OF splrItuous liquors, vendue mas
ters. exhibitors Of theatres and ctrcuse8, deal
ers In gunpowder, packers OF loose cotton,
Junk shop keepers, &C., &C.. OF the second
class were keepers of carts, drays, omnibuses
and other vehicles used for hire, Keepers Oh
public billiard tables, nine pin alleys, &C.
And he expresses the opinion that the effect
of the act OF 1870 was simply to authorize the
extension of the first of the above classes, but
without reference to the second class Of
licenses, which were for using or keeping
certain kind of property. He argues that the
use of vehicles OF all kinds, and especially
street-cars, is a source Of expense to the city,
which Is charged wlthth proper repair and
good order of the streets, and that the Injury
to the streets arising from the use of vehicles
Is directly proporlienate to the number which
each owner employs. He, therefore, con-
cludes that the only equitable mode of as
sessment should be according 10 the num-
ber of vehicles employed, since II would be
manifest Injustice, for instance, to charge
hackney coschmap, who used only one car
rlsge, the same license fee as larger pro-
prletor, who uses for the same purpose six or
dozen. A decision by Judge O'Neall, In the
case OF the City Council vs.. Pepper Il Rich.
ss7) Is cited in support of this view, and the
conclusions reached by the recorder are ex-
pressed as follows:
For these reasons think that the cars or
carriages of the Street Railway Company are
subject TO such regulations and the payment
of such license fee as he City Council may
think proper, and that the power Of such
regulation is not derived from, nor limited by
the Act of March l, 1870.