The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-02-21
Fmperfanf Dcc1sa0n- City Councils
Cans Give Money TO Private Enstf.
tnsions.

day. .ss
The opinion of Hon. Judge Pukney, OF
the Circuit Court, 10 the case OF George S.
Brown ct al. us. The Mayor and City Coun.
Gil OF Baltimore, was fled yesterday. The
ordinance Masking appropriations for the year
1915 embraced several charitable, education.
al, and reformatory institutions, to which
St. Mary's Industrial School, $40 600; Manual.
Labor School, balance, 81, goo; Home of the
Friendless. balance, $500; German Orphan
Asylum, $1,000; Maryland Agricultural
Society, $4,000; Boys Home, $4,000 !;
| Maryland Industrial School for Girls,
IS, 900; ST. Vincent's Infant Asylum,
81, 500; House of Good Shepherd, $4,000; ;
Little Sisters of the Poor, 81 600; Mary land
Institute, g., 500; House for Fallen Women,
$3.50; Union Protestant IDfirmary, $500;
st. Andrews Hospital for ChiIdren, $500 !;
st. Nary's Orphan Asylum, 1880; Aged
Mems Home, 81 900; Aged Women's Home,
81 900; Maryland Institute for the lnstruc-
ton OF the Blind, $1,000; Hebrew Hospital,
$500 St. Joseph's Home of Industry, $500;
Maryland Eye and Ear Institute and Balti-
more Eye and Ear Institute, 81, 500 Mary.
land Lying.n Asylum, 8, 800.
The plaintiffs in the case prayed for an
Injunction to restrain the city from paying
the above sums. 10 the able and elaborate
argument made on both sides the plaintiffs
were represented by Messrs. S. Tackle Wal
lis and F. W. Bruno. the Mayor and City
Council by Colonel Albert Richie, and the
various institutions by Judge Merrick,
Messrs. G. j. Bouaparte, E. Otis Hinkley,
John T. Morris, j. NJ. Carter, Judge Allston,
NJ. A. Mullin, William F. Prick, and W. B.
Hill!
The argument commenced in the Circuit
Court on December 18Th last, and occupied
three days then, when it was postponed un-
til January 10th, when it was recommended
and continued on the 18th and 12lh. 1t was
concluded on the latter date, when Judge
Pinkney informed the counsel he would hold
the case sub curid. Judge Pinkney Sustains
the Injunction except so far as it applies to
the Maryland Lying In Asylum, the Mary.
land Eye and Ear Institute, and the Bati-
more Eye and Ear Institute, declaring the
appropriations to all the other institutions
involved unlawful.
OPINION OF JUDGE P1EKNEY.
This Cause comes before the court upon
the motion to dissolve the Injunction hereto.
fore issued, and has been argued with an
ability and learning commensurate with its
importance.
OS vi luC SulI 10 " tSSI f1iuly
of an ordinance passed by the Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore making appropri.
ations for the year 1875 so far as it approprI.
ates money derived from taxation 10 the
corporations which are made defendants.
1t is an established principle that munich.
pal corporations can exercise no powers but
such as are expressly granted 10 them, or
such as are necessary to enable them to dis
charge their duties and carry into effect the
objects and purposes of their creation ). that
the authority conferred upon them is to be
fairly but strictly construed, and that all acts
beyond the scope of the powers granted are
void.
It can hardly be seriously eontended that
the aboye.euumerated grants authorize the
Mayor and City Council to appropriate
money raised by taxation to person or pri-
yate corporation as a gratuity, bounty, or a
Gift, But it is contended that these defend.
ant corporations are public corporations, or.
at least, that they are agencies of the city for
The performance of duties imposed upon it
by the State and that upon either of these
grounds the appropriations are valid eX'
ercise of the taxing power OF the city.
There is no necessity for going into q
particular examination Of the acts incorpo
rating or amending or altering the charters
of the several corporations IN question, 10
show that, in Law, they are not public corpo'
ra,iops for the line which separates public
from private corporations is too sharply de-
fined to require any minute examination.
And the conclusion above arrived at, that
these appropriations are extra vlreS and an
unauthorized exercise OF the taxing power
granted to the city, derives strength from the
fact that the counsel for the respondents have
been able to produce no case in which tax
imposed by municipal corporation in favor
of private corporation has been sustained
unless special authority was conferred upon
it for that purpo'e; while on The other hano
the counsel for the companants have cited
an important decision of the United State:
Circuit Court for the Fourth circuit (the cast
of johnson Us. The City of Charleston ano
the City Council Of Charles!on), II
which it was held that an appropr
alton OF the City Council OF Charleston tc
The Roman Catholic Asylum sid holy Com.
munion Institute vas unla "ful and void
Aud in the case of Hitchcock Us. City of 81.
Louis (49 Missouri, Asa case not cited al
The BARI it was decided by the Supreme
Court OF the State of Missouri that the gen
eral grant of powers in the charter of the
with those OF the Mayor and City Council
of Baltimore-did not authorize the City
Council to appropriate money to the ST.
Anus Orphan Asylum and Widows Home
as donation of the city towards the main
tenance and support Of that institution, II
being mere private institution, not under
the control Of the city, and having no connec'
ton with it.
IL appearing that the appropriations for
the Maryland Eye and Ear Institute, and the
Baltimore Eye and Ear Institute, and for the
Maryland LyiDg.in Asylum, were founded
upon contract between the city and those
institutions to do for it service within the
corporate powers of the city, and for which
it had no suitable instruments of its own, the
bill was dismissed as 10 them by the com.
pIainants' solicitors, and have since passed
an order dissolying the injunction US TO them.
/ allude now TO those corporations, be.
cause they we'll illustrate the distinction
which, in my opinion, separates lawful
appropriation of money By the city for char
liable purposes from one that is unlawful.
1t is u distinction which is understood to
have been sanctioned by the learned court,
which decides the case of johnson Us. The
City Of Charleston, above referred to, and it
is the controlling principle in the judgments
In the case of Hitchcock ps. The City of ST..
Louis (49 Missouri, 484), before referred to,
aud of the ST. Louis Hospital Association Us.
Same Us Missouri, $685.. In the former it is
seen that it was decided that the donation to
the St. AIMS Orphan Asylum was illegal and
void but In the latter it was held that the
city of st. Louis having employed the St.
| r TT tos, Nho