Evening star., 1934-09-12
The tert OF Justice Let's oral

The tert of Justice Let's oral
remarks tollo1OS:
In considering this matter, I frs
made inquiry to determine whether o.
not these plaintiffs were authorized u
maintain this suit. I came to the con
clusion that the case of Champion VS.
Zabriskie, 101 U. S. sol, is conclusive
of their right to do so. In that case
the court says:
"Of the right of resident taxpay-
ers to invoke the interposition of
court of equity to prevent an illegal
disposition of the moneys of the
county or the illegal creation Of a
debt which they in common with
other property holders of the coun-
ty may otherwise be compelled to
pay, there is at this day no serious
question. The right has been rec
ognized by the State courts in nu-
merous cases; and from the nature
of the powers exercised by munich
pal corporations, the great danger
of their abuse and the necessity Of
prompt action to prevent IRENE
diable injuries, it would seem emf
emily proper for courts of equity to
interfere upon the application Of
the taxpayers of a county to pre-
vent the conSummation of wrong,
when the officers of those corpora
tions assume, in excess of their
powers, to create burdens upon
property holders. Certainly, in the
absence of legislation restricting
the right to interfere in such cases
to public officers of the State or
county, there would seem to be no
substantial reason why bill by or
on behalf of individual taxpayers
should not be entertained to pre-
vent the misuse of corporate pow
ers. Those who desire to consult
the leading authorities on this sub
ject will find them stated or re-
ferred to in Mr.. Dillon's excellent
treatise on the law Of municipal
corporations"
Massachusetts, Case Quoted.
In the Massachusetts, maternity cas-
(Mass. VS.. Mellon-Frothingham VS.
262 U. S. 447, the Supreme
Court also said:
"The interest of a taxpayer of a
municipality in the application Of
its moneys is direct and immediate,
and the remedy by injunction to
prevent their misuse is not inap-
propriate. 1t is upheld by large
number of State cases and is the
rule of this court"
The statute with which we art
dealing is made specifically apph
cable to the District Of Columbia
The administration of this law /!
placed upon the Commissioners of tht
District, and the broad duty with
which we are concerned is that StateC
in Section 7. They have the power
and the duty, perhaps, to forbid the
issuance of licenses for the manufac.
ture, sale or storage of alcoholic bev.
erages in such localities in and such
and portions Of the District
of Columbia as they may deem proper
in the public interest. Continuing the
reading Of this section, 1t seems clear
that the Commissioners are vested
with a discretion, and are charged
with duty, which may only be per-
formed by the proper exercise oi
judgment and discretion upon the
which are intrusted to them
and one Of those matters being the
duty of making proper inquiry to de-
termine what, if any, sections or loca-
tons in the District Of Columbia
should be dry in the sense that
licenses should not issue.
''May Not Be Delegated"
Now. I think it is elementary that
discretion of that kind vested by law
in a public official may not be dele
gated. may not be surrendered. The
duty must be performed, and it must
be performed in the exercise of judg-
ment and proper discretion. 1t would
seem that for the Commissioners tc
adopt the views of some one else, as In
this case to adopt the views of the
residents of Takoma Park (thoSe
views and wishes being made known
by referendum) would be tantamount
to surrender of their duties and the
delegation of their powers to some
one else. 1t would be the delegation
Of the duty of making the decision
upon this matter to the residents OF
Park.
Incident to that matter, may also
say that the procedure here initiated
would, If adopted by the Commission
ers without further exercise of judg-
ment and discretion on their part in
determining the matter, be denial to
certain property owners within the
Takoma Park area, whose residence is
outside of that area, of any right to be
heard in determining whether or not
Takoma Park should be granted a
license or not. The statute does not
place a duty upon the
Commissioners to inquire into the
wishes and desires and interests of
such property owners who reside else
where, but that is a matter that could
hardly be avoided in the exercise of a
proper discretion in coming to a con-
clusion in the matter, for the evident
reason that, in the issuance of licenses,
the Alcoholic Control Board is charged
with the duty of inquiring as to their
interest and wishes.
Political Rights.
Now, there is a general policy that
courts of equity will not interfere with
the holding Of elections. that theory
resting, perhaps, In political consid-