The morning times., 1895-08-09

Judge Cole yesterday morning dismissed
suit Of William X. Schoepf, superiutend-
ent of the lexington and Soldiers Home
Railway Company, for a writ of habeas
corpus from the police court where he is
now under sentence for violating n city
ordinance by the unla wful occupation
OF government property.
Mr.. Ridout, his attorney, gave notice
Of an appeal and unless the court of ap-
peals reverses Judge Coles decision the
sentence Of the lower court viii be IN all
probability carried out
As superintendent Of the railroad COM
pany, Mr. Schoepf was arrested for vio-
latiug an ordinance of the late corporation
OF Washington, passed November %,
1862, 10y occupying New York avenue
with trolley poles and wires. He plead
! cd not guilty, was given hearing and
convicted. he was then given his choice
OF paying fine of $50 per day for each
days continued violation of the ordinance
or a sentence in the workhouse
By the advice of counsel he chose the
latter, and sued for a writ of habeas cor
pus. releasing him from the custody of
the workhouse officials, on the ground
that the ordinance under which he was
sentenced was void. Pending the hear
ing and decision OF the case in the supreme
court of the District he was admitted
TO BAN in the sum Of $500. Mr.. Stephen
Tally acted as his surety.
JUDGE COLES OPINION.
Judge Cole took the matter up the first
thing after court convened in the morning.
Mr. Ridout for his client, and Messrs.
Thomas and DuvaIl, for the District,
were present. All of the lawyers around
the courthouse gathered in the room, and
Mr.. SChoepf himself came in as the opinion
was being completed.
The first question in this case" said
Judge Cole, after briefly alludjng TO the
nature of the cause before him, lis that
Of the authority of this court TO review
the proceedings of the police court. The
Supreme Court of the United States has
passed on this matter and shown that this
court cannot pass on matters where the
police court has had jurisdiction and has
passed on the same matters. 1t cannot
review the police court proceedings.
The petitioner, in his argument, held
that the police court was without au-
thorty to enforce the ordinance, on the
ground that the District OF Columbia can
not maintain an action in its own name for
obstruction OF streets that belong to the
Government of the United States, and
which latter alone has authority TO bring
such action His attorney cited ca ses to
| show that the Government OF the United
States alone had this right.
The question, therefore, is whether the
| right is exclusively in the Country's Gov
ernment or whether the District may not
also bring action. hold the latter to be
the case.
The act Of 1871, section II, which the
Revised Statutes afterwards repeats, gives
the board OF public works the right to make
all necessary regulations to keep in re-
pair the streets, avenues and alleys of
Washington.
TWO PRECEDENTs CITED.
I'm two cases the United States Supreme
Court construed the act and said in both
cases that the missioners have full con-
troll Of the streets and are under duty to
keep them in repair, and that they are
liable for damages for any injuries or acci-
dence resulting from the presence of the
obstructjons.
I'm both these cases-they We're the
Barnes case and the Woodbury. ca se-the
superior court carefully studied the matter
and only reached the conclusion given after
long deliberation. Ii must follow then that
the Commissioners have authority to keep
the streets in proper condition, or the
liability for damages could not stand.
May the power of enforcement of
their authority be exercised in the police
court? is the next question. Congress
has enacted that the police court shall
! have power to consider cases under the or
dinances of the District Of Columbia.
The law under consideration is an or
| dinance OF 1862, and it follows, then,
| If the ordinance itself is valid, the police
court has the power.
1T was conteDded that the ordinance
was invalid for want of authority of the
city council 10 pass ii. This point was not
vigorously coutended, however, for OBJ
yiOus reasons. Not only had the council
authority by an act of Congress of 164S,
but the statute OF 1891 adopts and continues
in force its laws.
DEFECTS OF THE LAW.
Inc peItlOner alsO neiu tne ordinance
TO be void for uncertainty, because it does
not specify with sufficient clearness the
penalty inflicted for its violation. Cases
were cited by him. On the study of these
cases ] find in every instance that the or
dinances proved unavailing, not because
of their own irregularities, but because of
defects in the municipal charters under
which they were framed. The ratification
of Congress, however, removes all objec-
tions
''Stress was placed Oh the argument that
the ordinance was unreasonable. 1t is GER
tainy extreme language, aud a literal con-
struction would prevent person from even
walking in the street. But all statutes
must be construed reasonably, and under
stand this TO mean that no one person shall