Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-08-04


alton in the City.
II lnoks now rs though the Phoenix |
Fire Go. would be compelled to resort
IN the courtB to obtain from City
Council the increase of appropriation,
amounting to ST, 800 year, which the
,esislature at lis last session directed
Council to pay. as City Solicitor u. Q.
Jourad has decided that the new Con
Intuition of the State 'prohihits Council
rom paying tine extra money, notwith-
landing the ACTION OF the Legislature.
At the mesting of Council on. Thurs
buy night, July 21st, Mr.. Oherly in
reduced and had read twice and re-
erred to committee an ordinance max
ng extraordinary appropriations, one
10 cover the increase mentioned above,
knother to pay the county tax COL
ectors for making the assessment re-
uired under the Adams Tax law, IN
he city. and the third to provide
upd. for the Board OF Port Wardens,
1t Thurdny nights meeting OF Council
Chairman O'Neill of the law committee
Duuupued that he was unable to make
report ON the ordinance, as Clty
Solicitor Conrad had made an ADVERSE
ecision concerning one OF thu items.
The city solicitors report ON the
drdjuauce, which bad been sent up to
President Leitoh'H desk, was read. 10
he report MIR. Conrad stated that by
eferring to section 8 OF articls of the
tate Constitution, he considered it
lear that no city had right to ap.
ropriate money to any private corpora
on. and that the Legislature had ex-
pedei its authority when it passed the
in directing Council to increase the
ppropriation to the Phoenix Fire Co.,
hich be held to be a private corpora
on. i.
After the report had been read Mr..
isher asked Mr.. Conrad, who hap
ened to be in Council chamber at tho
me, to mate<a further explanation.
r. Fisher said he did not consider
he companies private corporations in
be strict sense of the word, as they
10 maintained by the city, and 10 his
bnion are a part OF the municipal
brporation.
MIR. Conrad made few remarks In
! hpport of his opinion. He said ne Was
!, bry much surprised to find that the
!, Constitutional provision is SO sweeping.
reads as follows:
. mo county, city, town or other
|. unicipality shall lend it's credit or
hpropriate money to; or assume the
eiit Of, or become shareholder or
y Mint owner in or with any private cor
pration or any person or company
J. hnteyer. :"
u Mr.. Conrad explained that in the
ii resent case the Constitutional pro-
v sion meana that HNo city shall ap-
ut npriats money to any private cor
to bration. - He held TINT the Phoenix
I'll rs Co. was just as much private
'ss sporation as any other corporation in
'x city, having been SO designated and
% bsted with corporate rights by tht
le legislature. Council has been appro'
nS Plating money annually to the PheeniS
bd other companies, he stated, on the
hound that they were doing public
|rvice. Council HAD a right to dt
70 it, having besn given the authorit,
~ Irfectlly legal under the old Constitu
h pn. hut a new Constitution has gon'
es, to effect and Council or the Legis
OF lure cannot get behind the funda
ntal law of the State.
kei Ii was against my sentiments, h
o' 3D. Sin arriving at. this conclusion
or BIT | consulted other authority, som
which is very high authority, AM
lev agreed with me. ! would be yer
lad il the Phoenix Co. would take tn
am after to the court and have the LAY
" sted. The company can 60 to tn
~" hyperion Court in September and as
br a mapdamus compelling the city t
ay the money, and the ruling of tn
"A burt, the business Of which is
bisrprer the law, will relieve you an
~ He OF this responsibility in the matter
s"alI Throw out this suggestion, aa l hop
,1O Me company will act upon ii and hay
Il Is matter definitely settled by To
| nm urt''
"a Mr.. Robertson asked whether th
Az her fire company appropriations wer
VA eal il this one would not be, to whic
KIM lestion Mr.. Conrad rsplien in th
Nh hirmative. He said the existing Law
,,vel Id not been expressly repealed. an
, I'm view of that fact the law regulatin
lie regular appropriations woul
anu. The general principle. he O.
ohm aimed, where law is passed col
and citing with an old law is that the o.
=" II W standa unless 1T is expressly r.
.;so1 baled. He stated further that the la
ii m |oyidiug for the increased appropri
an, on to the Phoenix Go. was the on
An, be Of the kind passed since the ne
we, onstitution went into effect
Wan Mr.. O'Neill said he wished to di
aim any responsibility for the opinit
the city solicitor, not having ask
it, and he desired to know who
,rscs Q responsibility belonged.
ska MR. Oberly explained that the matt
lball ID heun BROUGHT to his notice Il
d I'd IS ago and he had asked for &
tim Union, thinking Council should Q
mag oceed in the dark. lie said whsn t
ckiu hitter OF increasing the Phoenix %.
preparation was first brought TO t
t IGNITION of Council be was opposed
but after the Legislature had pass
o. bill he favored 1t, and hoped tn
entf company would take the matter
rnin courta and that the question wor
3ls decided in its favor.
lontf Mr.. O. Neill asked whether the opini
rnipa the city solicitor was binding
uncil, or it was the duty OF Coun
go bs.ore the court to have the j
Haed upon. Mr.. Conrad said
10 ought Council should accept the @
,eeu icitor's opinion, although he did
lsne OF to set his opinion up against
OF rid.
q fru Dn Mr.. O'Neill's motion, the opini
-IN received and fled No action
nm ksn on the ordinance.
III Very little other business was tra
a., eh during the meeting. Mr. Obe
inoa Rsentsd communication from FRI
ID y. Kettlewood, asking for the
hiding Of 49, 10. ovorpaid capital
+, which was referred to the final
nmittee. a4
H. M