Delaware gazette and state journal., 1884-02-14
WATER 00MsrIssION CASE.
Arguing for a Continuation OF Two
Weeks Before the Court of Errors

mission vs. D. H. Coyle. Under the
constitutional provision Judge Wales,
Chancellor Salisbury and Judge Woo.ten
are to sit at the January term of the
court. A letter WAS read from Judge
Wootten stating that owing to his Intense
suffering from felon on his finger, he
could not be present Monday at the
opening of court, but felt that his
health would permit him to sit week
later. George Gray and Ignatius Grubb,
Esqs., represented the Water Commission,
md William G. Spruancs and Benjamin
Nields represented Mr.. Coyls or City
Council.
After Judge Wootten's letter had been
read MIR. Gray made application for the
court to reconsider its opinion that 1t
could not make an assignment in the
case, aud select either Chief Justice
Comegys or Judge Houston to relieve
Judge Wootten, and sit in his stead. He
argued In favor OF the righta OF the court,
and the prspriety OF making such an
assignment.
Mr. Nields opposed the application,
and oontended that the court could not
aud ought not to make such an assign
ment.
A. the close of the argument the court
decided to adhere to its opinion previously
expressed, that 1t had no power to as
sign any other judge to sit in the case.
After the court announced its decision,
Mr.. Gray, in brief argument, moved
that Monday, the 25th inst, be set for
the argument. He supported his motion
by an earnest argument, showing that
the Importance of the case, the rights of
the Water Commission and the interests
of the people of Wilmington require that
the case should be- heard at the earlies,
moment, and that no case uould scarcely
arise that could appeal to the court for q
more prompt hearing aud decision. Mr..
Gray hoped the opposing counsel would
assent to the postponement, and carry
ont the letter and spirit OF the agreement
between both sides.
Messrs. Nields and Spruanos strenu-
ously resisted Mr.. Gray's motion and
urged every objection to an early hearing
insisting that the Argument OF the case
should be postponed until the June term
Of the court of errors aud appeals.
Mr.. Grubb in reply urged that this was
not case OF no consequence as sug-
gested by opposing counsel; not matter
between two petty officials OF Whining ton
but question between the Water Com
mission and the City Council, or rather a
contest between the City Council
and the legislative power of the State !;
between creature and creator. He stated
that City Council and it's appointees were
defying the legislative authority of the
State aud refusing to obey law of the
State, which is presumed to bs eonstitu-
tional until shown and judioially de-
clared to be unconstitutional. L. ia
recognized by all courts that no more
important question oould come before a
court than one which involved the
unoonstitutionality Of law aud fla
grant rebellion against the legislative
authority of a state. Mr.. Grubb argued
that the early hearing and decision was
of the utmost Importance, because since
the passage by the Legislature and the
acceptance by the city Of the revised
charter Of April 18th, 1883, no power
exists legally authorising City Council or
any officer or other person to manage
the water works and water supply of
Wilmington except it could be found in
the act creating and empowering the
Water Commission. With this fact in
view 1t is necessary that an early settle
msnt OF the case be reached In order to
make legal contracts for carrying on the
water works; to prevent conflict between
the Water Commission and different de-.
psrtments Of the city government; to
prevent illegal appropriations of public
moneys; preclude the possibilities there.
from aud to avoid endless and costly liti-
CATION to the city in the future.
Admitting therefore the supreme i'm
porsance OF an early decision, Mr.. Grubb
urged that counsel on the other side had
not presented one reasonable or we'll
founded objection TO the hearing two
weeks hence. On the contrary, the
opposing counsel had themselves fur.
nished reason which preoluded them
from objeoting to have the case argued as
early as possible. That reason, con
tinued Mr.. Grubb, is to be found in two
clauses of q written agreement of Septem
ber last, between the counsel for both
sides, which he proceeded to read as fol.
lows:
Seventh-That both parties be pre-
pared to argue [mandamus or quo war
rantol the oase or csses st the next Jan
uary term OF the courts Of errors ard
appeals.
Righth-No application shall be mad,
to the chancellor by either party unit
the judgment OF the court of errors and
appeals.
Mr.. Grubb in explanation stated tina
without an agreement of counsel this cas-,
could not have been heard before tn,
court of errors and appeals until mex
June term. Accordingly the counsel fol
the Water Commission had entered int
the agreement and accepted the pro
visions preoludiDg them from resorting Il
injunction proceedings, IS the considera
tion for obtaining Learing at the Jsnuar,
term. Without the counsel for the con,
mission agreeing to refrain from injunc
| tion proceedings, counsel for Mr.. Coyl
| refused to enter into au agreement TO
the hearing at the January term o
court. By securing hearini
| and decision at the January tern
the Water Commission believed it woui'
| better serve the interests of the citiz9n
and meet public approval than by pre-
| ducing deadlock in the city govern
ment and a probable stoppage of tn
entire water sapply by various injune
tion proceedings. But as tb
COUNSEL for the Water Commssio
had foreseen, this would enable Cit
| Council to collect the January wate
rents amounting to about $50, 900. Tbi
Connoil has done. In short it has IT
oeived its consideration from the Wate
Commission for entering the agreement
and now urges the court not to give til
commission that early hearing at IL
January term for which it agreed to IT
frsin from injunction proceedings.
Mr.. 6rubb declared that ii opposin
counsel further insisted upon the court
denying them the early hearing agree
upon by postponing 1t until the Jur
term it would be breach OF the lett
and spirit of the agreement and that Il
ccur. by postponing to the June ter
would be putting premium on breat
of faith which the Water Commi
sion counsel did not believe Il
opposing counsel would desire
the court sanction. After this expl
nation OF the real situation MIR. Grul
stated, in conclusion, that "they ha'
their quid and We want our quo; thu
have what we agreed to give them, al
We want what they agreed to give u
and Justice and the rights OF the publ
demand an early hearing Of this CASE"
: Tho court, after brief oonsultatio
granted the motion, fixing the hearil
+ 4