The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-09-03
ANOTHER GARBAGE DECISION
Judge Brown, of the Circuit Court,
Says the Contract Is Good.
Cadfs Opinion Northumberland
Jameson Granted the Injunction
Against the Pirates"

In the Circuit Court, yesterday morning.
Judge Brown handed down his decision in
the case of Thomas j. Jameson against
Greenberry Walker and others. brought by
Jameson. the assignee of the garbage con-
tract, to eDjoin the collection of garbage
by the defendants. who were unauthorized
by contract to do the hauling. The COM
plsint. after setting forth the passage of
the garbage ordinance by the Council and
the contract by the Board of Public Works.
alleges the assignment and ratification
thereof by the board. IL sought TO eDjoin
the defendants from the collection of gar
oage from the downtown districts where
the collection was profitable.
The court. after reviewing the allegs-
tions in the complaint said that the ques-
tion of law presented for dis consideration
was whether. under the power conferred
by the city charter. the city had the right,
through the agency OF the Board of Public
Works and the Council, to enter into the
garbage contract There was also ques-
tion of fact to De determined, viz, did the
evidence show that the equipment of the
contractor was sufficient for the proper re-
moval of the garbage of the city, accord
ing to the contract with the city. Then
followed long comparison OF the affairs
of the city before and after the adoption
of the new charter, in which he said:
1.-The change has great advantages Tor the
city as a whole. but 1t also has great In
dividuaI burdens. Those who expect TO
live In a city and enjoy ell the privileges
afforded by q we'll regulated municipal
government cannot ex pect TO enjoy all the
individual freedom of the rural districts or
small villages The public convenience
and health are matters of grave concern In
q city, while IN the less denseiy populated
districts little attention Is given them. The
old charter WAS not sufficient tn deal with
the gar baGe question, as it was inadequate
TO deal with many other questions. The
court may consider the remedy sought as
well as the mischief sought TO be corrected"
After more comparison of the old with the
new charter the court continues:
LIT may be that the men who have made
q living by hauling garbage may, like
OtheIlo. find their occupation gone
Hotel-keepers. who have made q profit
from their refuse. may nave 10 pay TOT Its
removal. but If the public good demands It.
it must be-"
The court held that the law did not re-
quIre tie contractor To perfect his system
IN few days.
The concluding paragraph of the decision
10 as follows: When our city officials have
had the good sense TO provide q general
plan. which. when properly appreciated
and carried ont, will have the effect, more
than any other one thing. TO remove the
producing cause of the cholera germs. the
courts vi not ;hwart IL in its good work.
Viewing the evidence in che
light have Indicated. am not prepared
10 say that plaintiffs equipment is made
quate. and that the contract should not be
sustained for that reason. liz follows under
the Law that the city had the right 10 make
the contract and the plaintiff must be pro-
tected By the court In his endeavor To full
I'LL II. The Injunction 10 granted"
At the conclusion of the decision the at
torneys for defendants fled notice of ap-
peal