Delaware gazette and state journal., 1884-06-12
fUn wayrs ooMwIss0v 0Asr.
Argument Opened I'm the Court Of
Err. Ors aud Appeals by Il. q
RradfOrn. ECO.

| Argument Opened In the Court Of
Err. 0rs aud Appeals by Il. q
Bradford, Esq.
special Correspondence Of Gazette Ind journal.
DOVER, Jnus 9.-rLe oour. OF errors
aud sppeais opened this mOrnioa, with
Chancellor Salisbury and Judges Wootten
and Whitsley on the bench. The water
commission case wss at once taken up
and papers In the same read until the
noon adjournment and concluded in the
early part Of the afternoon session. The
title OF the case as Il came before this
court ia ss follows:
David II. Coyle, plaintiff In error, We.
George Gray, attorney general of the
State OF Delaware, who sues for the said
State, ex-relatione Henry B. McIntire,
defendant In err, r. Information in the
nature of quo warrauto. For defendant
in error, W. C. Sptusnoe, Benjamin
Nields, &. G. Bradford. For plaintiff in
error, George Gray, George Il. Bates, l.
C. Grubb.
MR. BRADPoRD's ARGUMENT.
At 3 40 p. m. argument WAS opt ned by
&. G.. Bradford, Bsq who spoke until
6 80 p. M, when court adjourned Until
to morrow morning, when he will CON-
olude his argument.
Mr.. Bradford began by rehearsing the
separate provisions OF the water commits
sion act and the pleadiugs agreed to by
counsel as preliminary to the question at
Issue, which he stated as follows:
The question whether David II. Coyle
has or has not usurped the cfice of chief
engineer Of ths water department de-
pends upon the effect Of the action taken
by the board assuming to act as water
commissioners.
II that board had the legal authority to
con !rol and manage the affairs and pro-
perty of the water department, under
existing circumstances, Coyle is
usurper.
But il it had not such legal authority
to control and manage, its action was
nullity, and Coyle rightfully holds aud
exercises the dntiss OF the office.
The central question in the case is not
one OF political expedienoy or propriety,
but Of legislative power.
Had the legislature the power, under
existing circumstances, to take from the
Mayor and Council OF Wilmington" the
management and control of ita water de-
partment, and Of all matters and property
connected Herewith, without the consent
and against the will OF the said corpoi a.
tiOn, and vest the management and oru
troll Of the same In board of water oO,n.
missioners, not elected or appointed by
the city OF Wilmington, or any 81 L.
authorities, but named iii ll,, sJt ereau
the board 7
Mr.. Bradford then made numert NJ
references to authorities recognizing tits
dual nature of municipal corporations.
Dover, June 10.-COnrt reconyened ct
8 a. m. and Mr.. Bradford resumed HE
argument in the water commission case,
speaking steadily till l O'Clock, the hour
of adjournment, resumipg at p, m. aud
closing at 3.45 having spoken nearly
hours in all.
MR.. GRUBB's ARGUMENT.
At a p. m, Igr ssius C. Grubb, Esq,,
opened for the defendant in error, as
follows.
The matter before this court Ia one of
the grayest Importance. None could be
more so. For this court Is called upon to
sit in dgment upon the action OF GO
ordinate branch Of the State government
and TO draw in question an exercise OF
Legislative power. This is duty which
the judicial department of the State will
Away approach with reluctsnoe and
perform with caution.
The situation ont OF which these pro
ceedines have arisen is unusual as it ia
deplorsble. 1t is more than a contest be-
tween mere cooperative officials. 1t is
not merely q struggle for the mastery be-
tween the board of water commissioners
aud the late council of Wilmington. LISA
conflict between the council and the legis
lature, between creation and creator. 1t
furnishes an instance OF wilful disregard
Of the first duty Of citizenship, which is
to obey the law until 1t is judioialiy de-
clared to be void, and an extreme case OF
defiant disobedienoe to constituted
authority.
1t has been claimed that the enactmen.
of the Water Commission act is denial
to Wilmington of the right of self govern
ment, and is an evidence OF i'll will
towards her people on the part of those
residing in the residue of the State. Yet,
as r matter of fact, 1t cannot be shown
that the people Of Wilmington had no
voice in the enactment Of this law. For
her own representative OF the latest
expression OF the popular will under our
constitution, both voted for and advo-
| Gated its passage.
Nor Ii it true that the people outside
of Wilmington have, through their lest
last Legislature, evinced hostility to her,
or her interests, reputation, or ambition.
For their representatives conferred upon
her and her representative the highest
honor in their gift by making him their
| presiding officer.
We will therefore dismiss from the
| consideration OF these cases all such eug-
| ges,ions as being irrelevant ss they Ere
upfounded, and, discha'gipg prejudice
and passion, discuss the actual legal
issues raised, in the light of reason and
| subjsot to established principles aud sst-
| tied rules OF Law.
Mr.. drubb then proceeded to discuss
| the details of the act and TO sst forth that
the same ooDfers authority ou the board OF
water commissioners : First, to have the
care aud control of the existing city water
water properties with view to the
present supply secondly, 20 erlsrge and
extend the present. city water properties
with view to the future supply.
| AT 6 80 curt adjourned until 9 O'Clock
tomorrow morning, when Mr.. Grubb will
continue his argument.
-