The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-20


corporation. on the ground that ii was op-
pressive and unreasonable.-M Us.
Winfield, Humph., 707.
so In Connecticut it has been held that
every one has, presumptively, a common
law right TO fish In nayigable rivers, and
that bylaw OF town restricting the
privilege to its own inhabitants Is void be-
cause IN derogation Of the common rights
OF the people.
So In recent case in the Hastings Court
OF this city, Judge Christian, OF that court,
in an able opinion, in which many authori-
ties are referred to in support Of his judg-
ment, pronounced an ordinance OF this
city TO be void which required the occu-
pant or owner Of any building or lot Of
land fronting on any sidewalk to remove
the snow iherefrom within certain time,
on the ground that it was unreasonable.
But TO DRAW TIE LINE
separating reasonable and valid ordi.
nance on the one hand, from one unrea-
sonabe and invalid on the other. il often
attended with great difficulty. The gen.
eral principles, however, relating to the
subject are well-settled and familiar. The
difficulty i I'm their practical Application.
and that must depend upon the facts OF
each case rs ii arises.
We come now to consider the question
whether under The circumstances Of these
eases the ordinance under which the petit
TONERS were elected il or is MOI reasonable
and valid.
The question has twice been most elabo-
rately argued before uS-once at the recent
term at Stanton. and again at the present
term here-and the interesting and IN
structiNc arguments delivered by counsel
on either Side have been marked by rare
learning and ability.
Since the cases were submitted, sud
denly. and in the midst Of his usefulness
and intellectual yigOr, one who so power
fully participated in their argument has
been cut down by the hand OF death. The
loss thus sustained by the State few can so
fully realize and none more deeply deplore
than the members OF this court.
Aided by such arguments, and after ma
ture consideration. a majority OF the court
has reached the conclusion that the adop-
ton OF the ordinance in question was not
reasonable exercise OF the power con-
ferred upon the Council to fix the time for
the election Of officers, and, consequently.
that it, and the elections held under il, are
null and void.
As an authority opposed to this conclu-
sion we are referred 10 the decision OF this
court in Norfolk City Us. Ellis, 20 Graft,
224.
A reference to that case will show that it
IS widely different from these. There the
defendant in error complained OF an as
scssment for the purposes OF tdratsOn made
upon his property III Norfolk under all
thorify Of an ordinance oil the City Coun-
ell. The ordinance was assailed as ultra
rires aud void. It was decided 10 DC valid.
Judge staples, who delivered the opinion,
In which majority OF the members OF the
court cOncurred, stated the established doc
trine TO be that, ordinarily. the courts will
not interfere In the exercise by a corpora
ton OF the powers conferred upon ii in
matters OF that character. But be added
a. do not mean 10 say that cases may not
occur of such gross oppression and injus-
tice rs to require judicial interference, but
they are exceptional, and must be decided
as they arise upon the particular circum-
stances attending them, rather than upon
any general rule or principle" There il
nothing. therefore. decided in that ease in
consistent with the views Of the
rnprTy a. rup "nt-om
in this.
so with respect 10 the case OF Fisher as.
Harrisburg. Grants eases (Pa.), 29l, cited
and relied on by petitioners. In that
case the supreme Court Of Pennsylvania
decided that a municipal corporation has
power to make sewers without any special
authority given with that view; and that
il may, by general rules, regulate the use
OF them, and the price at which any private
person may tap them, and protect them
against injury by proper penalties. In
briefly delivering the opinion Of the Court,
Lowrie, j.. said: owe cannot say that the
price at which private individuals may tap
these sewers is unreasonable, and we have
no right to say it," BY which language
was doubtless meant that the Court had no
right arbitrarily to set aside the bylaw
complained OF in the absence OF satisfactory
evidence OF it. unreasonablsness. II the
power Of the courts 10 set aside such by
law. under any circumstances, was intend
ed to he denied. the decision Is In conflict
with the great weight OF authority. as we
have seen, and cannot be regarded.
THE ORDINANCE OF THE 2sTH JUNE,
1882, l. invalid for two reasons.
First, because 1t is in derogation Of the
rights Of the qualified voters Of the city
and in c0ntroyention Of the spirit Of the
charter. 1t j. obvious that the intention,
indeed tile paramount object, Of the Legis-
ture in granting the charter was TO provide
for the Inhabitants Of Petersburg not only
q local but representative government
government intended to rest in large
measure upon the consent OF the gov
erned; and In the administration Of which.
therefore, controlling influence is secured
TO the qualified voters Of the city. To that
end. frequent opportunities for the express
sion Of popular sentiment and the election
OF officers are afforded, and the means pro-
yided Tor promptly carrying into effect the
will OF the people when II has been
formally expressed AT the ballot-boX. Nor
Is this feature peculiar TO the municipal
government OF Petersburg. IL Is charac-
terislic Of municipal governments in Nir-
GINA generally, and, indeed, in all the
States OF the American Union. In gene
raj Il ere il secured TO the people in all OF
them the largest influence and fullest con-
troll consistent with safe and stable govern
ment.
Referring to the municipal institutions OF
this country, an observant and philosophy
cal foreign writer has said Of them, that
they are to liberty what primary schools
are to science; they bring It within the
peoples reach; they teach men how to use
and how to enjoy it. And he further OBJ
serves. that nation may establish sys-
TEN Of free government. but without the
spirit OF municipal institutions II cannot
have the spirit OF liberty.
Such being
THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY
government Of Petersburg, we can lind no
authority in the charter for the adoption OF
the ordinance OF the 18th Of June. II
gives to an expiring Council, or rather 10
Council three days before the expiration
Of the terms Of one half Of its members, and
on the eve OF the coming into office OF the
newly-elected members TO succeed them,