Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1884-06-11
CITY COUNCIL.

sory weather kept the chambers of both
hoar,ls tclerably clear of spectators, and but
,ule interest was taken in the proceedings
,.y. by the members of the respective
branches who were present. There were
seven members
IN THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN,
and after the reading of the minutes OF the
lust meeting, II petition was read from
Frank Taylor, the former driver OF the
Hylraulinn steam fire engine, praying
,iuucil to allow him 81 for the remainder
If the month Of January, 1854, ne having
brpn removed from his position after serv-
inc but about ene-third Of that month.
The prayer of the petitioner was granted
unanimously amid laughter.
Mr.. Moore, from the Committee on the
Poor, offered resolution that the Commit
tee on Public Property, be authorized to
ascertain upon what terms the Plnn lot,
adjoining the lands of the Aims House.
c,y be purchased. He explained the bene-
it the Aims House would receive by the
acquisition of this lot; and believed the same
could be obtained for 81 400.
Mr. Smoot and other members thought
the matter should be referred to the Com
mittee on the Poor.
After some further debate the resolution
WAS referred to the last named committee.
4 petition from DR.. T. Marshall Jones for
permssion 10 erect frame stable on the
north Of his lot on Pitt street, between King
and Prince, excited some discussion. The
Doctors petition was signed by his adjoin-
inc neighbors, and some members favored
granting the request while others thought
The matter should first be investigated by
the Committee Oh Streets. The latter course
was adopted.
A communication from Geo. ID. Hopkins
prayiug Council to allow him to conduct
his business under a commission merchants
license was then read. The petitioner
stated that from February last he had been
having license tax at the rate Of $50 year,
being listed as q commission merchant, but
after the last license law was passed by the
Cty Council the Mayor had denominated
him a comm ercial broker and demanded
that he take out such a license.
Mr.. Strauss moved that the petition he
granted. The same section had been in
the law for the past two or three years, and
if it meant what the Mayor now supposes it
means it should have been enforced long
ago. Mr.. Fowle had been allowed to con-
duct grain brokerage under commission
merchants license.
Mr.. Reid asked that some one explain
the difference between commercial broker
and commission merchant
The cerk-The former buy and sell OH
what are called futures.
The President also explained the modus
oprundi of q grain broker.
Mr.. Smoot read from section 20 of the
license law relating to commercial brokers
which had been in operation for the past
six wears, and said he didn't know why it
had not been enforced. The tax on such
parties was 800, and the State law defined
as a commercial broker any one selling pro-
duce not in hand. He did not know any
thing about the petitioner, but one party
engaged in such business here had been
before the Finance Committee and stated
that the Mayor had demanded 500 from
him for the privilege of conducting his busl-
ness. The committee had told him the
Mayor was executive of the city, and con-
sequently they had no jurisdiction in the
matter. The same party, however, admit
ted that he was engaged in selling goods
not in his possession. The speaker under
stood the profits of these brokers were large,
and he thought 500 little enough for the
privilege enjoyed.
Vi
the Mayor put upon this section of the
license law would work detrimental to the
interests of others as well as Mr. Hopkins.
There were Messrs. Brookes, Henderson
and Broders, all of whom conducted bust
ness nearly similar. He would like to know
what were brokers.
Mr.. Smoot said he had just quoted from
the State lazy defining brokers.
MIR. Strauss again urged the granting OF
the request. The Commissioner of the Rev
enue had only taxed Mr.. Hopkins $50. lie
also reiterated his surprise at the past
lethargy of the Mayor in his perception OF
the meaning of the law he was now so
anxious to enforce.
Mr.. Marbury asked Mr.. Smoot it the
clause in the State law defining commercial
brokers was recent.
Mr.. Smoot replied that it was an old law.
Mr.. Moore again took the floor, and IN
refutation Of the assertion of Mr.. Smoot
that the profits of the brokers referred to
were enormous, said Mr.. Brookes' profits
would not exceed 81 ,0O0a year, and Messrs.
Henderson and Broders cleared less. The
commissions were small. Mr.. Hopkins
commissions had aggregated about 5000 in
the past three months, and plenty Of COM
mission merchants had cleared that much.
A long debate then followed, in which all
the members participated, as to the dliler-
ence between money broker and grain
broker, some confessing an inability to draw
the line, and others asserting the two to be
entirely different. ;,
Mr.. smoot again taking the floor, said,
according to the statement of member
(Mr. Moore) who had controverted
his conclusions, Mr.. Hopkins, the
author of the petition before the board, had
cleared $500 in three months-S30O per
month with no capital invested and no
risks to run. He reiterated that the party
came under the head of commercial bro
kerr in which "puts," "calls," "blindss,"
"slraddles," and all the other terms in the
vocabulary of financial gambling were used.
Such enterprises carried much more money
from our city than they put in it.
Mr.. Moore said such parties did leave
money in any community in which they
were located. Their expenses were heavy,
having to pay 5000 y month for telegraph