Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-03-17
Auctioneer Question Revived
at Thursdays Session.
THE COMPLAINT OF W. A. HUKlLL
Action Postponed Until Law
Committee Reports.


sideration. among them ths auctioneer
question, the proposed new city charter |
and the desired increase Of the Phoenix |
Fire Co. appropriation. After an ex-
tended and somewhat breezy discussion |
on the auctioneer question, in which |
the Stearn & Co. case was dwelt upon |
with a deal of vigor, the matter was |
left with the law committee which |
already had it in charge motion to |
adjourn until next Monday evening TO
consider the proposed new city charter
was defeated by a vote of to G, and a |
resolution endorsing an increase In the
Ph9niy Fire 20. appropriation from
81, 500 to 50, 600, was adopted by vote
Of to 6. As to the proposed purchase
of land for park purposes in the vicinity
Of Rattesnake run Council may inspect
the properties Tomorrow, President
Leitch presided and all the members
we're present
The auctioneer question was revived
before Council by the following letter,
which was sent to the desk by Mr..
Oberly:
Wilmington, Del, March 10TH 1893.
To the Hon. President and Members of
the City Council-Gentlemen The latter
part of section of the city ordinance regu-
lating auctloneers says 1.-THE Council shall
have power for cause deemed sufficient by
eight members thereof to revoke any license
so granted" &c. For my own safety and
guidance very respectfully beg leave to in
quire what Council would deem sufficient to
revoke license in order that we might
know what nature of violation of the ordi-
nance would produce that result. For in
stance, IL n man who can read the ordinance
and understand its very simple meaning,
and is fully equipped with license to run
mn iorh ot nd tho md
enjoys all the privileges granted to him in
said license every day in the year, and should
be called upon by stranger who had come
to town with the prcmeditated intention as
then appeared and after fully developed, of
runninga protracted auction sale on large
scales without. paying for such privilege,
and who after being fully warned not to do
so, in a defiant manner, i'll language more
emphatic than elegant. said he did not care
about the law, and then ran such a sale
until the penalties incurred for such viola.
ton would have amounted to 81, 100 accord.
ing 10 section of the ordinance, after which
being arrested importunes said auctioneer to
shelter him from the stormy blasts, and said
auctioneer who had already one auction
house and with full knowledge that he had
no right to do so, accedes to said strangers
wishes and attempts to cover said unlicensed
auctionhouse with his license written On
paper that was never made to stretch two
squares and charged said stranger who had
got into trouble for his illegal services and
collected the same by bulldozing process
for he could not have done so by law
would such an extraordinary breach of the
Law, justice and business decency be deemed
reason sufficient to revoke his license?
Further, if man who Council had every
reason to believe could read and had read
section 3 of the ordinance, and who was
running one auctionhouse continually,
should gather goods la conjunction with
Others from the four corners of the city into
another place OF deposit, some of which he
moved from his licensed house for the ex-
press purpose of selling them at auction and
advertised the same as belonging TO people
leaving the city; would such violation OF
the law and gross misrepresentation of facts
be deemed reason sufficient to revoke his
license? Or, if licensed auctioneer, who is
so strictly forbidden in section Q to allow
The use of his name to another, other than
bis assistant in order that they may coli
duct an auction sale. should conspire with
pne or more men to engage sales and call
,he same in his presence while he stands by
% protect them from the terrors of the law
would such conduct render man unworthy
of license in the eyes of Council? Or, il
man violates the ordinance in every bar
ticulsr as set forth in this communication
and do it persistently and repeatedly would
1t be considered sufficient and If not, wha
would?
And now, in conclusion, for the enlieht
should have named anybody or everybod,
in my communication last week, beg leay
TO say that there are six men who call sale
within the city limits | am one of then
and have a license; William N. Lank is an
other, and he has an assistants certificate
and, according to simple subtraction, tw
from six will leave four, and there is onl
one other license under which that four cal
shelter, and do not suppose there is a MAJ
IN wilmington who knows who compos
that little quartet better than does tha
member. How strange only wish t
add that do not think it wise to use all m
ammunition in the first skirmish hay
more powder and that powder is dry.
Very respectfully, w. A. Hukill
The members found themselves yer
much Interested before Clerk Morrisso
had concluded reading.
Mr.. Oberly stated that it had bee
handed to him by the clerk, and b
hardly knew what to do with it. u
moved, however. that it be referred 1
the law committee.
Mr.. Robertson declared that it SCENE
M injustice for the city authorities
allow men to carry on business contraI
to city ordinance. Mr.. Hukill had con
piled with the law and paid his licsn
like man and if others had not paid
halt should be called; the authoriti
should look them up and prosecute.
Mr.. O'Neill remarked that the on
objection he had to the statement W,
that Mr.. HukiIl gave no names, and
could not sec how Council or the la
committee could know who is viola
ing the law. IL Mr.. lukill would sal
the names the COMMITTEES might pla
the matter in the hands of the ci
solicitor. AS one member of the col
mittee he promised, il the names We
sent In, to use all his exertions to bri
them to justice.
At the suggestion of Mr.. Leary Gle
Morrison read the ordinance on at
tioneers which was passed June 24t
1897. fixes a license fee of 500 to ST.
the business, and names penalties 4
sundry violations.
In the course of the discussion N
Smith brought up the matter Of Stes
d Co., holding that they had procur
license and that an assistant "
operating under it in their name, a
that everything had been done in
cordance with the ordinance.
Mr. o. Neill related the circumatan,
concerning their being arrested
violating the law and the comprom
OF the case by their paying the licei
Zee. But he declared they left to
right away, and Council did not KIN
now the present builder got the licen
lie believed there was fraud back of
Mr. Smith held that IL there was
tault 1t was In tho officers and not
Council, and that Staarn & Co, havi
paid for license, could name snyt
they pleased rs assistant
After further discussion NJ To