The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1874-01-17
THE nRoAD.sTREEr QUESTION.
The r.. +. d r. n. II. Company Fined $500
by Justice White-IIis Opinion I'm
pr 40 ac-Eta

Inc X. II. d. p II. r. Company Fined 500
by Justice white-IIis Opinion Ii
tho Premises-Etc.
The continued case of the r. f. &c. p
r. r. R. COMPANY. CHARGED with violation O
the city ordinance in running steam en-
pines on BROAD street. was finally argued
In the notice conrt to-day bv the city at
tornev for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Dan
lei and Onld for defendant. after which tht
court delivered tbe foilow,np concise oninior
in the case ;mnosine n fine of five hundred
dollars on said COMPANY. IAN appeal ha,
been taken from his decision to the circuit
conrt. which will he heard before ,Judoe
Wellford1. .
:,
City Of Richmond as. IL. r. + +. IL. H.
Company.
On summons to the defendants to show
cause why fine of $500 should not be inn
posed on them for the violation of an ordi-
nance of the council of the city of Richmond,
prohibiting the propulsion of the defendants
trains by steam on Broad street east oil
Belvidere street, passed September 8,
1873.
The defendants admit the violation of the
ordinance. but submit "that- the court
Sl0ulQ NOT lmDOSe Lne ule OH lneIl, DeCauSe
the said ordinance is in conflict with and in
violation of the constitution of the United
States and the constitution of the state of
Virginia, both OF which prohibit any legis-
latiye act impairing the obligation of con.
tracts.O
The validity of the ordinance is therefore
the only question to be considered.
The Legislature of Virginia, by ian act
providing a charter for the city of Rich
mond. approved MAY "a, 1907 vested in
the council of said city the power to de-
termine and designate the route and grade
of any railroads to be laid in said city,
and to restrain and regulate the rate of
speed of locomotives, engines and cars
upon the railroads within the said city, and
to wholly exclude the said engines or cars,
Dropided no contract be violated. And
the ordinance now under consideration
was passed on the 9Th day of September,
1873. ia pursuance of SAID authority.
It is held by the learned counsel for the
defendants that this proviso was designed
by the legislature to protect, seven from
attempted violation,5 the franchise and
vested rights derived by the railroad COM
panv under its charter contract enacted in
1884. Be that as it may, l am of the
opinion. and submit it with Difference, that
the proyiso is not protective of the alleged
rights of the defendants to propel their cars
by steam on that part Of their road designat-
ed in the ordinance. think the proviso con-
travenes the police powers of the state and
city, and therefore is nugatory.
The power to regulate and prohibit the use
of steam by railroad companies in cities is q
part of the police power of the state and
city, which extends to the protection of the
lives. limbs, health, comfort and quiet of
all persons, and the protection of ali prop.
ertv within the state, and 8. cannot be alien
ated even by erpress grant, When the
regulation of the police of CITY or town is
piyen TO such CITY or town. and the repula-
tion Of their own internal rolice is given to
railroads to be carried into effect bv their
bylaws and other regulations. it is. of
course. always in such cases subject to the
supreme control of the legislature, THAT
ia a responsibility which legislatures cannot
diyest themselves of, if they would.n
[Thorpe VS., r, & B, r.. r. Co., q Yer.
mont. 149. Redfield, q. J.1
The distinguished counsel for the defend
ants maintain that the company under the
Oath section of their charter, has the ex-
elusive right to use steam engines, or
locomotives, in the city. l respectfully
differ from them. The company has rights,
it is true: but think the power conferred
by said section on the. defendants must be
held in subordnation to the police power
of the state and city, for reasons above
stated. The council of the city OF Rich
'mond has never surrendered its power to
regulate and prohibit the use of steam
by the railroad company; but on
the contrary, expressly and positively re-
served all her chartered rights, excepting
only the privilege to the company of con-
structing and connecting their road with
the depot at the intersection of H and
Eighth streets. Indeed, the council
have frequently during the existence of
the company resolved that the city
possessed and has never yielded or re-
lnquished the right to prohibit the intro
duction of steam engines into the city.
[See resolutions passed December %,
1884, January q, 1889, ard November II
lS45 also ordinance passed October %,
1889. Mr.. Justice Cooley, in his admi-
rable treatise on Constitutional Limitations,
edition of 1871, page 574, remarks as fol-
lows "This subject [police power of
the statesl has often been con-
sidered IN its bearings upon the
clause of the constitution of the United
States which forbids the states passing any
laws violating the obligation of contracts