The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-05-29

praying for refundment of portion of
tavern license paid by him, as he had
closed his business, was, on motion, re-
ferred to the Committee on Licenses.
A communication, signed by numerous
citizsns. praying for the removal of one
Mrs. Honoysuckle out of her residence
as public nuisance, was followed by
one signed by several Of her neighbors,
asserting that she kept quiet and or.
derly house, and was not by them con-
sldered nuisance.
Alderman Carr stated that he thought
1t would be unnecessary for the Council
| TO act. as he understood Mrs. Hoffman,
who Owned the house, would remove
Mrs. Honeysuckle.
The following from j. d. Tradewell,
O!ty Attorney, was presented by his
Honor the Mayor:
COLUMBIA. s. c., May 26. 1873.
To His Honor John Alexander, Manor of
tho City of Columbia.
MY DEAR SIR: deem it proper as City
Attorney to inform you, and. through
you, the City Council, of the condition
OF the litigation in which the CITY of
Columbia Is engaged at this time, and.
drst, to inform you Of the status in the
court OF the case of the Cola umba Water
rover Company against the city of Co.
lumbia. From the order of his Honor
Judge Il. B. Carpenter, imposing a fine
on yon and Mr.. Hook, with costs, for
contempt In disobeyiLg, in certain par
tlculars, the injunction granted by him
to the plaintiffs. an appeal was taken to
the Supreme Court, and we have we'll
grounded hopes that the judgment of
that tribunal VIII be favorable to the CITY.
The question OF the Injunction, however,
did not in voive the merits of the causa
to any extent whatever, and the counsel
for the city bad expected, at one time.
that the merits would ha-e been argued
at the recent term Of the coart for THE
County. but. owing to the very full state
OF the calendars, that was found to be
impracticabte. By consent of the court
and OF the counsel on both sides, the
case has been set for q hearing at cham
bers. on the Sd OF July next. This was
ihe bsst that the cor,. and council we're
able to do in the matter.
In regard to the application on the
part OF certain citizens, merchants OF
this o'ty. to the court for prohibition
TO restrain the city OF Columbia from en-
iorciog, bJ execution placed in the
hands Of the Sheriff of this County. the
collection of the license taxes imposed
upon them by the c,ty OF Columbia, it
was found lmpiaoticable to have q hear.
ing jnst at tins time, owing to the short
notice and the absorbing engagements
OF his Honor Judge Carpenter at the
close OF the term. An order, however,
was entered, by the consent OF counsel
and the approval OF the Judge, that the
case be argued at chambers at some
day III the curly future, to be fixed ac-
corolpg to the convenience Of his Honor
Looking to the great importance OF the
question to this CITY as financial ar
raogement, and as involving the validity
ol The whole scheme of liccnses as part
OF the revenue system of the city, l
thonght 1t best to associate Messrs. Pupe
Haskell with me in the conduct of the
cuse. and respectfully ask tho Council to
ratlfy my act. The question will find its
way to the Supreme Court before it
hn"lIy terminates, uul,ss the judgment
of that on the power Of the General
Assembly to pass u general license law,
u q iestion which il now under its ad.
visement, should be adverse to tho con.
atltutlonnlity Of such an Act. Ii the
Judgment should be adverse, then it is
more than likely that l will advise the
CITY Council to modify its present license
ordinances, certainly, so as to conform to
that Judgment; for, uuless the State
possess the power under the Constitu-
ton to levy such u tax as q measure of
revenue, the argument that it does not
possess the right to confer suoh power
upon municipal corporation becomes II
serious one; not conclusive, however,
against that right. As the questions are
not identical, tho extent to which the
anticipated judgment of the Supreme
Court may settle that of the constitu.
tionai power of this city, under the
eighth section Of the act OF 1871, to i'm.
pose license tax on the avocation of its
citizens, cannot be ascertained until that
judgment phall have been pronounced.
Tne two cases against the city of the
representatives OF the late Col. Abram
Blanding, instituted to compel the i'm
mediate payment of the old Water
Works debt. have made no progress, bnt
await the action of tho City Council as.
to making some change in The form Of
the obligation held by the plaintiffs
against the city An the evidence of that
debt AS [ have heretofore said, tho
very questions involved in these eases
have long since been adjudged against