The Washington times., 1913-07-31
THE WASHINGTON MARKET.

Rather more of common sense and less OF sensa-
tionalis7l would bet useful discussion Of the prob
lem of Center Market There are several reasons,
for example, why il is useless to discuss an alleged
debt of 100000 or maybe ST 100000 owing from
the market company to the city or the nation. Most
important of these is that if the company owes any
such amount of money it couldn't possibly pay it.
There is no property which the company holds ade-
ouate to meet any important part of such debt II
! it found to exist; and moreover the Supreme
Court of the United States has held that there is no
such debt On this point the present Corporation
Counsel Mr.. E. H. Thomas, on July 6, 1906 pre-
pared the following memorandum for the Commits
sioners:
The District Of Columbia heretofore sued the Wash
ngton Market Company about $4,000. difference in
unpaid rent between s2 900 and $500 annually from
June l. 1871 till November l. 1875. The original char
ter 6 Stats 124 reserved $25000 rental annually to be
for the relief of the poor of the city and District and
the of the District under legislative authority Q1
Stats, 540) where the Market Company surrendered
tween Seventh and Ninth streets to the District in con-
sderaton of the reduction of the annual rental OF
annually considered and decided
to the claim for S2500 annual rental adversely to the
District of Columbia Washington Market Company g
MacA 559). The appealed by the District to
the Supreme Court of the United States and
an opinion delivered by Mr Justice Matthews 0S U. S.
243 decided that Congress had authorized the District
and the company to make new agreement and that
valid had been made reducing tne rental
$1,000 annually and sustained the decision against the
District Commissioner West several months orally
directed investigate and report on this matter and
acting under his instructions did so investigate, and
reported the above to him with my opinion, to
which adhere. that the question of reduction of
rental adtudcata and not open to review
AS matter of fact, in deciding that case, the
Supreme Court found that the Market Company, in
consideration for the reduction of rental, had re-
leased to the District certain of the property origin
1 r. k,oC CO,,rt
observed that there could be no more reasonable
consideration for reduction of rental, than such
reduction of the amount of property for which the
rental is paid.
The circumstances seem to make it reasonably
clear that there has been no gigantic fraud against
the Government or the District Efforts to get the
real issue complicated with charges of that sort will
hardly accomplish results such as the District should
desire.
The Washington Market Company is not de-
frauding the Government; but on the other hand
it is not providing such public market as this town
ought to have. The whole question of a municipal
market is pressing one. A private, proftearning
corporation-and it is understood that the Washing
ton Market Company has earned very large profits
ought not control the chief market of the city 1t
ought to be as much public institution the water
The Washington Market Company makes no re-
port, according to municipal officials to any public
authority That is a most extraordinary situation
1t should be investigated forthwith in detail Its
franchise probably will be found to be such one
as no private corporation should hold, and, there
fore one to be revoked by Congress- Then the town
will be ready for careful consideration of the prob
lem of locating and developing public market ade
quate to present and prospective needs
Washington should be model city in this regard
of public market facilities. All the studies Of the
livingcost problem in cities have reached one con-
cusion: that public markets are needed, so located
and conducted insure the closest possible touch
between the producer and the consumer. Above all
things, public market should not be private
money-making concern. 1t should be public ia
cility, working for the whole people.