National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-11
THE CENTRE MARKET.
A Few Facts for Congressman.

A Few Facts for Congressman.
tReprinted by request from the editorial columns
of THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN Of July 10, ls74.I
THE CENTRE MARKET CASE.
The decision of Judge Wylie in the injunc-
ton case against the Centre Market Company
is in full accord with public sentiment. In
the end there can be but little doubt that it
will be found to inure to the interest of the
stockholders, as we'll as those of the dealers
and the public. In no other way can the con-
troll of merit be vested in the meritorious
dealer. The goodwill naturally, and we had
almost said inevitably, resulting from laud-
able enterprise in business and square and
honorable dealing upon the part of butchers
and hucksters can be secured to them in no
other way. The method proposed by the
company would have compelled the dealers to
pay the company for the reputation and good
will of their stands every two or three years
in the shape of bonuses.
These bonuses, as the judge truthfully held,
would, in the end, have come out of the con-
Stunning customers of the dealers in the shape
of increased prices of meats and vegetables.
But aside from this, tine goodwill of the stand,
in all equity, is the rightful property Of the
lessee. 1t is his creation. The company can
have no title to it. 1t had nothing to do with
the making of it and should have no interest in
its value. If the rental of the stalls is made
quate to the payment of a fair dividend upon
the property, then that is q question to be
decided upon its merits, and the company will
find little difficulty in obtaining redress.
Means for raising the rents or fixing them at
a fair rate are provided by the charter. But
the course pursued by the company was oner-
Gus, unfair and oppressive.
Just now we are especially jealous of every
e
that the market company would consult its
best interests by avoiding everything which
might he construed into an attempt to influence
or control the business of their tenants. The
true road of prosperity for the company is I'M
doubtedly that which will insure the success
of the dealers. The interests of the two are
identical when viewed in proper light. They
should therefore be pursued with harmony,
and with particular care that neither trenches
upon the vested rights of the other.
Private markets are so popular and numer-
GUS. that the permanent existence of public
markets is a mixed question. Their utility is
doubted by many, while the marked success
which has attended many of the most notable
private enterprises of this chara cter in Wash
ington induces a considerable annual increase
of them. 1t is notorious that many of the best
liVers of the West End rarely send their ca
terers to a public market, choosing to rely
upon such men as Maillard, Febrey or Jordan
for their supplies.
These facts are mentioned as an admonition
to the grasping managers of the Centre mar
ket that they by no means have this entire
market business Sin a sling" and that there
may be danger of their splendid property in
buildings and franchise becoming an empty
and proitless speculation, If they are rash and
foolish enough to strangle the goose that by
proper nourishment would clay the golden
egg"
From the news columns of The same dlte.J
TIE BUTCHERS TRIUMPHANT.
The case of Hoffman VS.. The Washington
Market Company, involving the right to de-
mdnd bonus upon the stalls in the Centre mar
ket, was decided yesterday. After argument
by Mr.. Merrick for the butchers, and Mr..
Chandler for the Market Company, Judge
Wylie said this was not the court of last re-
sort, for an appeal lies in the general term,
and from there it could be taken still higher.
1t might have been expected, with the notice
the company had, that they would have filed
an answer. They had filed no answer, but in
stead an affidavit; but the case was before the
court, and fairly, for the bill is a fair one.
The defendant objects to the jurisdiction of
the court, regarding the case as one in which
the court has no more right to interfere than
in an ordinary case of landlord and tenant,
but this was not such a case. The right to
establish markets is a sovereign right belong
ing to the Government itself, and, with great
respect for the Government, he would say it
had parted with its prerogative in this case.
Congress was not, however, unmindful of its
duty as to the public, and in passing this law
comforting a valuable privilege on the CON-
pany, they had no idea of allowing the public
to be plucked.
The act provides that the stalls shall be put
up at auction and sold or leased for a term of
years. If the law stopped these purchaser
would have had to take 1t for such q time.
But the law goes further, and enacts that such
purchasers shall have the stalls so long as they
shall occupy the same in their business and pay
the rent. The lessee in the first section is alb
solutely bound to pay the rent or bonus, and
he took it with view of paying rent, but not
bonus, after the expiration of the term. This
provision was q trust for the public, and for
the benefit of the public. This matter is not
between the company and the dealers, but be-
tween the company and the public. What
would be the result if this company had and
exercised the right to put on bonuses every
year?
Every man buying a piece of beef would
have to pay an extra cent per pound, and five
cents extra on butter and other commodities.
Congress took this view of the subject, and
the public owe them a debt of gratitude, for
they intended to protect the public. The COM
pany attempted to accomplish by private
=
law did not warrant them doing, and 1t was
an illegal arrangement. Twice the bill of the
which would have left the public at
the mercy of the company, passed the House
of Representatives, and twice were the objec-
tionable features stricken out in the Senate.
The court will not allow violation of the
charter by issuing a "permit."
The company, after selling the stalls, say,
"YOu shall not take possession of your prop.
erty unless you enter into an agreement with
US to sacrifice the public interest" The plain
tiff in this case finds himself an occupant of
stall in June, and the company gave notice
that they intended to sell. But not according
to the charter was this sale to be, for they in
tended to sell the choice. It was not this kind
of auction that the law contemplated. Even
If they had the right to hold the second aue-
ton, they had no right to sell the choice of
stalls, for the occupants at the previous sale
had title in them. 1t was an unfortunate
for the public that this misun-
had taken place.
The object of the corporation is to make
money, and when q company have a grant
bordering on sovereignty itself it must be care
fully watched. The stall of complainant in
this case was about to be put up for sale, and
his goodwill in it about to be sacrificed. The
case presented a well-settled ground for equity
Jurisdiction, and he would order the iniunc-
ton.
The butchers will at once return to their old
stands without bonus, and the business of the
market will go on as usual.
The market company will, 1t is understood,
take an appeal.