Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-12-07
VALIDITY OF MARKET LAWS
Novel Points to be Raised in
Roseby McMullin Case.
STREET AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
Should Submit Its Ordinances
to the Mayor.


Afeall of the ordinances adopted by
tho Directors of the Street and Sewer
Department null and void? That is
the question which is suggested by a
novel poirt which l.. Irving Handy
proposes to lay before the Superior
Court when he comes to argue tho
certiorari proceedings in the case of
Rospby McMullin VS.. the Mayor and
Council Of Wilmington. McMuilin was
fined So and costs in the Municipal
Court for violating city ordinance,
PASSED by the Street and Sewer Di-
rectors, requiring that % cents a day
be paid for space on the curbstone
market.
In certifying the record to the Su-
perior Court, Mr.. Handy sets forth sew
eral reasons on which he bases the
claim of error. He is method of reason
ing with reference to the validity of
ordinances of the Street and Sewer De-
partment Is something like this: Under
the city charter, "The Council" was
given authority over markets, and it
also was required to submit an ordi-
nances to the Mayor for his approval
or veto. The act creating the Street
and Sewer Department gives it the
powers of 1.-THE Council" with refer
tuC6 W SlFtBbSs lIttF cluCb TBctlNtuE
those powers, the Street and Sewer De-
partment has gone on the principle
that it was supreme within its sphere,
and has passed ordinances and called
them laws without ever submitting
them to the mayor. Mr.. Handy con-
lends that the law did not give the
Street and Sewer Department the
towers of THE Mayor and Council"
but only those of 1.-THE Council'' and
that, therefore, as Council had to sub
nit all ordinances TO the mayor, so the
department must do likewise.
III this novel contention can be sus-
tanned, the validity of much Street and
Sewer Department legislation may be
questioned. IL tho Street and Sewer
Department can legally pass ordinances
without submitting them to the mayor,
the departments power is even greater
than that OF Council in the work that
still remains to Council. for it must
submit suuh Legislation to the city's
executive.
Mr.. Handy has other points to raise
in the McMullin case, and one of them
is that the Street and Sewer Depart
ment has no jurisdiction over markets
at all that the contio of the markets
was never taken out Of the hands Of
Council.
He further holds that the Legislature
has fixed the number Of kinds of
markets to four, namely. farmers and
truckers, the Now. Jersey market, the
hucksters' market and the fish market !;
and that as any other market was
forbidden, the fruit aud grain market.
on Fourth street, between Market and
King, in which McMullin was stand
ing, could have had no legal status.
That being SO the Street and Sewer
Department, could not, he holds, exer-
else any authority over it.
An additional contention of Mr..
Handy's is that the Municipal Court
had no right to make a final dis
position of the case, unless to dismiss
| il; that it was such case, which, If
not dismissed, should have been sent
to the General Sessions Court for final
| disposition
The argument ON the certiorari may
take place next Saturday.