Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-04-12

Attacks Upon the Market Com YanY.
THE RICH sTAIL-HoLDERs IN THE WASHINGTON
MARKET VS.. THE SMALL DEALERS.
The Market Company Favorable to an Equalization
-cfthe Rental according to the Location and Talus
of the StGlLs.
A local In THE EVENING STAR of the Sd inst.
Undoubtedly paid for as an ADVERTISEMENT,
headed "The Washington Market Co. u.s. The Peo-
pie" In which was paraded a report from the
District committee OF the House, made previous
TO the recent decision Of the full bench sustain,
ing the action OF the Market Company and the
District authorities upon the main questions
nat 6o1e Of Dy ase Dsres c3mmitsSe IN the
this time to inisiead the public, and thereby
work an injustice to the Market Co., as wen as
the poorer class OF stall renters
That the alleged violations OF the charter,
upon which the report Of the House committee
Was founded have been absolutely settled in
seen by the Following statement Of the e. case sc
and conclusions, cut from the "Law Reporter
Of the It'll inst In which the full opinion of the
court Is published:
'First. Did Congress possess the constitu-
tional power to reduce the rent exacted by sec
ton IA OF the act Of 1s7O?"
After an elaborate statement OF the case
and citations from numerous authorities, the
court answers this first question as follows:
"We have, therefore, no doubt that Congress
must be admitted that it was not essential thai
this reduction should be made by an act o.
Congress and by explicit words; Congress might
CludIg tlit cuO Uy auLlOflZlQp the
District of Columbia the successor of the city
government, to release or reduce the rents and
this power might be con1ded to them by general
though not explicitly describing it." p"''
The second point Is stated as follows: "Second.
The question then ar1sen-Did Congress confer
such authority upon the District government?'
The question, after very full statement OF
the reasons, Is answered explicitly as follows:
ave, therefore, conclude that Congress did by
me iair interpretation Of this section Of the
power to adopt and conclude all requisite meas
ures to acquire the land described in the law.
1Dgs.'
The concluding portion OF the opinion OF the
Court, fully sustaining the arrangement re-
oucing the rent In consideration OF the sur
render OF the front land TO the District by the
Market Company, ought to relieve the company
from further assaults on account OF the trans
fer. The Court says: I'VE are thus led to the
conclusion, trhich Is concnrrcd an by az the
members Of the court who heard the cause that
the 0efences interposed by the special plea and
admtsed oy the demurrer constitute bar to
"The questions we have examined are all that
properly arise In the consideration OF the case
presented by the pleadings. Wish the consid-
to the alleged unwiSdom or imputed fnoru-
delce OF the arrangement, this court can have
nothing to do. This IS not an application TO a
court OF equity on the part OF the city to reform
an overreach1ng bargain imposed upon inexpe-
Renee or ignorance. It is an action brought by
one party for stipulated rent, upon a con-
tract, which the defendant alleges has been
lawfully changed by a subsequent competent
agreement between the original contracting
parties. The only question for the decision OF
this court, therefore, is whether this suO3e-
Quent agreement was entered into by coLnpe-
tent authority, as alleged. our province Is SIM
ply to declare the law, as in our judgment we
md 1t to be-
'.But 1t may Lot be anlisS for the court to say,
that We fail TO discover some OF the appre-
hended evils which 1t was urged would result
the from q VIII no No yot
Company. There Is nothing whatever In the
negotiations which could be construed as CON-
hitting the District to erect buildings In the
form Contemplated by the original Charter OF
the Market Company. The agreement simply
operates 10 reduce the rental TO be paid by the
Market Company to 1880, or to such lesser
sum as, with the taxes on the company's pro
perry, will amount TO $4,000 per annum. It
creates no obligation, as we construe it, upon
taxation the s11, 500 Ghe difference between the
original and reduced rentaD for the use OF the
POOR CT the District and the city. For, even II
the District CT Columbia were enectuaily sub
stituted for the Market Company, In the 18th
section of the charter, the operation OF the sec
ton would then simply be TO require the Dis
which would work an extinguishment of the
rent, upon the principle that where the lessee
acquires the fee, the rent ceases, and the lease
hold title Is merged In the fee. See 90 Nd
Cook Y. Brice."
1--we 60 further however, and declare as our
opinion that II this were not so. and II the Dis
trict OF Columbia could be held liable to raise
The money annually, In case where the trust
was one which could be enforced by law, yet
that there could be no such obligation In the
present case, where the designation OF the ben
enclaries, 1.-The poor Of the city Of washington
ana or the District OF Columbia" Is so vague
and INDEFINITE as TO be incapable OF ascertain
ment, and no persons could show title to claim
tie benefit OF the fund In succession. Accord
ing to the law governing this District at the
time OF Its ceSsfon, such trust was totally
void, as 1t was IN England after the statutes OF
mortmain, and until the passage OF the 43d OF
EliZaDetb, concerning Charitable uses"
Tie main issue heretofore existing between
the stain renters and the company, briefly stated
9 this:-The company, under fits charter. sold
me cnOlce OF stalls and bonus rights, for two
years, az auction, subject to an equal rental on
each class OF stalls In the MARKET At the END
OF this TWO years lease, certain strong and
ssselthy dealers, who had thus secured the best
stalls u the center OF the market, along the