Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-07-09
The Washington Market Troub,e

The Washington Market TrouSle
TIE ISJUNCTIoN GRANTED To- DAY.
This morning, Is the Equity Court, Judg,
Wyhe, the case of Hoffman agt the WashingtSr
Market Company was taken up-Messrs Mer
IA and Cox for plaintiff ana Mr.. Chandler for
defe1 tsnt This Is the test case made in behal
of hutch rs WhO have been occupying stalls In
the Wssbin. I'll Market building. Ii will be
recoIIect.d ths, few weeks ago, when the
market comnsnv h. advertised the stalls fer
sale, the butchers and 81 % n1 Se sIers, Al tel
aconierenee, determined to S,,n " nn,s, ~
prevent the sale, and after consL. st
. .he present suit was commenced for a. ano-
tlon. preliminary restraining order vas
sfahted oy Judge Wylie, which had the effect
OF preventing the sale OF stalls, except where
.tne Iresept occupant asked that his stall be
put up.
Mr.. Merrick read from the bill the quotation
fIOm the charter-section (which gives the
company the right TO offer for sale for one or
more years, to the highest bidder, the right to
occupy said stalls With the right to retain and
oeeupy the same so long as the oecn"'"'
rent snd POSSESSION of the SAM ----osrres
I nenb ana complies with the ne, pays the
pany. any "Ioding on the part OF Ir1bn a' and
Mr.: Chandler sta,ed,,.. ..o,,-
esef In the usual .
=. ne had filed an an
.OTm, but submitted an afiida-
"a. UTdway to the effect that he acted as
auctiOneer in 1872; that the good will OF the
stalls was sold for the term of two years, and il
was so understood by each purchaser. Mr..
purchasers to occupy stalls for two years from
July LIST, 1872, and referred to Hoffman's sigma
ture to the market regulations.
Mr.. Merrick inquired IL the permit was not
Issued after the sale, and received affirmative
answer.
ARGUMENT FOR TIE DEALERS.
Mr.. Merrick proceeded to argue To, when
this stall was sold in 1872 the cd will was sold
subject TO the payment OF the rent. lie re-
ferr6d to the legislation OF Congress, arguing
that there was contest between the market
one 10 nd ha ~ har
the former repeatedly asking for an unlimited
power, and Congress circumvented them. SEES
sion after session unlimited powers were asked
Tor, and session after session this was denied by
proylslol giving the occupants the right TO
the stalls On paving the rents. He cited nu-
merOus authorities 10 show that corporation
could not exercise powers not granted them by
then charter in express terms. The right
given Is TO sell the stall fOT certain number of
years, and then The purchaser may remain for
al time by paying the rent. Congress says in
this charter that tie purchaser may purchase
a lease at Will.
ARGUMENT FoR TIE COMPANY.
Mr.. Chandler said the first objection on their
part is that there i nc equity in the bill. As
Stunning that the counsel IL correct, that the
company Is a landlord, what right has the ten
ant 20 ask the iDterpOsitiOn OF court of equity.
He cOntended that the counsel MIR. Merrick
erred as TO the law, and that the sale in 1872
was in accordance with law. He read the per
nit, and contended that in this case the com
pany and dealer had made q contract which
was not in violation OF their Charter. He asked
could ii not sell fer a less time? Admitting the
construction put on the charter by the COM
plainant, II the dealer purchases for a less time
than the company had the right to sell, and ev.
idenced the same in writing. Is he not estoppe,
from pleasing that the company had the right
to go further. Admitting that the company
could not exceed Its powers II may sell less thar
II had tha ight TO.
Mr.. Chandler, after stating that he did no
object TO the Introduction OF the bills, because
he desired the court 10 be fully informed on the
subject, said that u cOnstrue a statute the
whole OF IL should be considered together He
claimed that tie statute provided that the sale
should be for a term OF years not in peTpefuam,
and that subsequent sales shall be on the same
terms al in a similar manner.
Judge Wvle inquire as TO the terms Of the
charter ela,ing TO the fixing OF the rental by
the Mayor and COuncil.
Mr. Che nd er replied that 1t was that the cor
pOratiOn should have the power TO fix the rental
from time 10 time, and the present rents were
were fixed by the Governor. He argued thai
the intention vas that the stalls should be pub
lie property; that they should be sold for tern
of years, and the right Of occupancy shall bG
for the term for which they are purchased. He
urged that the statute made the stalls mer
charitable article, but forbid any private con.
tract. If the rental was hi Oh the bonus would
be low, and IT the rents low the bonus high. II
is absurd TO suppose that Congress intended
that the first sale should fix the value of tht
stalls for all coming time. The parties them
selves have placed the same construction on the
act by buying the stalls for two years. They
had not thought Of owning a perpetuity in the
stalls until they had conferred with his ingenious
friend,
JUDGE wYLrH's OPINION GRANTING THE IN
JUNCTION.
Judge Wylie. after remarking upon the i'm
p6Ttance of this case. said that this was not thG
court OF last resort, for an appeal lies In tht
general term, and from there II could be takeT
still higher. 10 might have been expected, witt
the notice the company had, that they Woult
have fled an answer. They had filed no an
swer. but Instead an affidavit; but the case wa
before the court, and fairly, FOR the bill Is fai
one. The defendant objects to the jurisdiction
of the court, regarding the case a. one il
which the court has no more right to in
terfeTe than in an ordinary case of land
lord and tenant, but this was not such a case
The right to establish markets Is a sovereign
right belonging 70 the government itself, and
with great respect for the government lie woult
say II had parted with It's prerogative in thi
case Congress was not, however, unmindfu
or It's duty as to the public, and in passing thi
law conferrlng ayaluable privilege on the com
pany, thew had no idea OF allowing the public
to be plucked. This act provides that the stall.
shaI DC put up at auction and sold or leased for
term Of years. II the law stopped these purcha
ser would have had to take It for such a time
But the law goes further and enacfs that sucl
purchasers shall have the stalls SO long as ID g.
shall occupy the same In their business and pa;
the rent. The lessee in the first section il Alb
solutely bound 10 pay the rent or bonus, and b,
bonus, after the expiration OF the term. Thi
provision Was trust for the public, anC
for the benefit OF the public. This mat
ter IL not between the company and the dealers
but between the company and the pubic. whS
would be the result If this company had an,
exercised the rlgul 10 put on bonuses ever
year? Every man buying piece OF beef woul,
have TO pay an extra cent per pound AMI ii VI
cents extra on butter and other commodities
Congress took this view Of the subject, and tn
public owe them q debt of gratitude, for theI
Intended 20 protect the public. The c0mpanI
attempted 10 accomplish by private agreement
in the form OF permit what the law did no
warrant them doing, and IL was an illegal ar
rangement- Twice the bill of the company
which would have left the public at the mere,
OF the company, passed the House OF Repre-
sent&tives, and twice were the objection abli
features stricken cut in the Senate. The cour
Nili not allow Q violation OF the charter b
issuing a Hpermit." The company, after sell
ing the stalls say aye shall not take possession
OF your property unless you enter into an agree