The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-27

4
snow from their payements. but must en-
force the ordinance, and might be held re-
sponsible TO one injured by the failure tt
enforce II.
now come to the consideration OF The
sixth and Last cause assigned for the rever
sal Of the Judgment OF the court below
viz, "That the provisions OF this ordi.
nance are such rs 10 render them impossi'
bic Of performance"
! The opinion cites various authorities on
this point:
! In the light OF these wel.settled princi'
pies, let US consider this ordinance not only
| with reference to the testimony in this case,
bur as compared with similar ordinances in
many OF the priDcipal cities In different sec.
tioDs OF the country, and in this way we
may arrive al q right conclusion az TO the
| reasOnableness Of lis provisions, and deter
mine whether or not IL should be upheld by
the courts. | have examined the ordi-
nances OF all Of the different cities 10 which
| could obtain access. and find the several
provisions on this subject in eleven of them
as folIows-viZ In New York tue snow is
required to be removed within four hours
after it stops falling. Ordinances, New
York, cb. 90, 15, p. 266.)
In Baltimore, "wthin three hours after
the fall OF any snow except the snow shall
have ceased 10 fail between the hours OF 3
O'Clock IN the afternoon and O'Clock in
the morning, in which case il shall be re-
moved before II O'Clock in the morning)."
Ordinances, BALI. p. sS2
In Providence, II. l., "within the first
four bours OF DAYLIGHT after the fall Of any
snow" Ordinances, p. 81, ch. -, !.
in Detroit, Mich. II il required TO be re-
moved within tWenty.fOnr nOurs after fall.
ing. Ordinances. ch. 81, |.
In Portland, Me-. within three hours
offer it stops falling, II in the day, aud be-
fore 10 O'Clock in the morning when it stops
dur0g the previous night. Ordinances, p.
3i1, G2.
IN wilmington, Del. within ten working
hours after il stops falling giving the area.
Ordinances. p. 274, l.
In Louisville within i0ur'hOnrS after fall
ing in the day, and before IL o'clock where
i, stops the previous night. Ordinances, p.
1873, gil.
In Chicago it is required 10 he removed
before . O'Clock each morning. Ordinances,
chlpter 43, 13.
| In Mobile the payemerts are required TO
be swept every morning before 10 O'Clock.
Ordinances, ch. 1, 3JG.
In Bloomington. H., GG which the ordi-
nance was judged 10 be inyalid-ln Gridley
as. Bloomington, SUprd.) il is required to
be removed within SIX hours when ii stops
falling in the daytime, and within six hours
after sunrise when IL stops during the pre-
yious night.
In Boston (undor an express provision OF
the present charter) the ordinance requires
the snow TO be removed within one hour
after it falls. IL in the day. and before 9
O'Clock in the morning where the fall is at
night. Ordinances, 630-'40; Charter, 81,
p. 50
It will thus be seen that in an enumera-
tiOn of eleven cities, including some OF the
largest, and located, as they are, in almost
every section Of the country, the city OF
Boston is the only one OF the eleven in which
the requirements on this snbicct are TO be
performed within as short spaces OF time as
those specified by the ordinance Of this city
Uhat requiring, as before stated, that when
the iaIf OF snow is in the day it shall be
removed within two hours, and II al
night, before Q O'Clock on the follow
ing mOrnine). Ii must be remember ed,
too, that the question OF reasonablcneSs in
a matter Of this kind must be always con-
Sidefed with reference TO time, place. and
circumstances, such as the habits OF the peO-
pie and the general nature and topography
Of the place; and thus an ordinance Of this
kind, which might be considered eaSonable
in a densely-built city like Boston, would be
considered unreasonable when applied TO 4
sparSely.buit city scattered over Il large
area like Richmond or Louisville. On the
Sd OF January, the day wien the report in
this case was made, the sun rose at 23 min
utes past O'Clock. Very few persons who
own lots in Richmond get breakfast at that
season OF The year before 3! or O'Clock,
and where person should be so " unfo:-
tunate" (:l (as this appelan! seems TO deem
hlm,clf) aS 10 bave several houses or lots.
10 comply with The terms Of this ordinance
he would have to race all over the city be-
tore BREAKFAST 10 see that all the sidewalks
in front OF his several pieces Of property
were cleared of the snow which fell the
previous night, or peceSSdruy incur the
penalties prescribed by this ordinance; and
tins. too, when the experience OF aim st
every other city shows that no good will be
accomplished by requiring the work to be
done within the limited time prescribed by
this enactment.
On the evidence. then, and by q cOmpari-
son OF this ordinance with similar provis-
ions in the cnactm6nfS OF other cities, | am
clearly OF the opinion that the provisions Of
this ordinance are unreasonable, and should,
on this ground. be held 10 be void: and,
therefore. that the judgment Of the Police
Court imnOSing a line on the appellant for
its violation be reversed and annulled, but
without costs.
/ AIN duly sensible that the power given
to the courts to annul laV- and ordinances,
because Of their repuguance 70 the Federal
and State Constitutions, OF the latter. be-
cau>e they may be deemed by the courts
unreasonable, is one OF their highest pre-
roga,iveS. should he exercised with great
caution. and only in plain cases. But
when the case is plainly made out, as
think this one is, "A court would shrink from
the performance OF one Of its highest duties
which failed 70 do what Il was OF opinion
The law required. With the greatest re-
spect to the legislative department OF the
Government, | cannot consent to be thus
knowingly derelict.
In conclusion, clnno. fOrbear TO express
the wish that the Council will at once, as
think they clearly nave the right to do, pass
a reasonable and proper ordinance on this
important subject, and that the police au-
thorites Of the city will see that 1t is rigidly
and impartially enforced, NOT only TO the
comfort and convenience, but also TO the
safety Of the whole community. am salts
fled that the excellent officer who presides
over the Police Court will do his duty fully
in the premises. In the view that have
taken OF this question, | have deemed it
unnecessary 10 express any opinion as TO
whether this proceeding should have been
against the owner OF the property or his
agent. But il the ordinance is amended by
the Council, | would suggest that it be
made explicit on this point.