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

presentation In the Council. Oi the twelve
members whose terms were TO expire on
the 1st day Of July, 1882, one only was re-
elected; and OF the sixteen members by
whose votes at the meetings Of the Council
ON the 18th, Goth, and both days OF June,
1882, the acts hereinafter mentioned were
done, only six were TO remain In the Coun-
ell after the LIST day Of July. On the said
2Stb, 10th, and 80th days Of June meetings
OF the Council were held, at which twenty
two OF the members were present. At said
meetings sixteen OF the members Qnclud-
ing eleven OF those whose terms were to
day thereafter), against the protest OF the
other six members present,
WITH VIEW TO rOREsTALL
the action Of the new Council, which on
the lst day Of July were TO succeed TO the
control and management Of the municipal
affairs Of the city, and with view TO
usurp the powers legally belonging TO the
incoming Council, when there was no
vacancy in any Of the several Offices which
had been filed by the Council at its first
meeting In July, 1880. undertook to exer-
else a second time the power Of electing
officers, and attempted to elect all the OIL
GERS OF the city that were to be elected by
the incoming Council for term OF two
years, commencing on the LIST day Of July:
and even undertook TO elect president
of and to appoint the standing committees
for the incoming Council. The,persons so
elected. or some OF them. are the petition
ers in these cases. On the 1st day OF july
the new Council met and organized: and
treating as null and void the proceedings
OF the Council on the 18th, Goth. and 30th
days OF June, and ignoring them, at once
proceeded to choose it, president and COM
mittees and TO elect all the officers elective
by the Council for The term Of two years.
commencing on that day.
The persons 40 elected. or some OF them,
having been chosen to fill the same posi-
tons to which the petitioners respectively
claim 10 have been elected for the same
terms, the question now to be determined
is whether or not the petitioners were le-
gally elected to, and are entitled to hold.
the offices thus in dispute.
THE DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION
involves the construction Of the provisions
Of the charter comforting on the Common
Council authority to elect officers. And in
| this connection II Il TO be observed that In
the construction OF charters OF corporations,
whether public or private, il Is r settled
rule Of Interpretation, established by re-
peated decisions Of the highest courts In
the land, that only such powers can be ex-
ercised under them as are clearly compre-
hended within the words Of the charter or
derived therefIom by necessary implica-
ton, regard being had to the objects Of the
grant. And any doubt arising out OF the
te. MS used by the Legislature must be re-
solved In favor Of the public Minturn IS.
Lane, 90 How, 435; Thomas rs. City OF
Richmond, IL WALL, 349; Thompson Us.
Lee county, WALL, 800; Dillon on Nu-
nicipal Corporations I'D ed, sec. 81.
Equally well settled iI the rule which re-
quires
A REASONABLE EXERCISE
Of an express power when the grant con
ierring 1t Is silent as to the time and mode
OF H. exercise. Ia his work on municipal
corporations the rule Is thus stated by
Judge Dillon: When the power 10 legis-
late on given subject is conferred and the
mode OF It's exercise Is not prescribed, then
an ordinance passed in pursuance there
OF must be reasonable exercise of
the power. or il will be pronounced
inyalid.--1 Dillon on Municipal Corpo-
rations I'D ed, sec. 32S and cases cited.
| And especially Is this so In respect 10 mu-
nicpal corporations. For a. upon them l.
conferred portion OF the authority which
properly appertains to the sovereign power
OF the State, the public interests require
that they be confined not only to the pow
| ers. but to q reasonable exercise OF the
powers which are clearly granted by the
terms OF their charters.
The time for the election OF officers by
the people Is prescribed by the Charter OF
Petersburg. But the time for the election
Of officers by the Council is not prescribed.
That il left to be fixed by the Council, its
power TO do so being derived by implica-
lion from the power to elect. Such being
the case, the question arises, whether the
Council can be iudiclally nteriered with In
the exercise OF its discretion in that re-
gard and that depends upon the question
whether the ordinance under which the pc
titioners were elected Is reasonable or not.
1t Is essential TO
THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDINANCE
that il be reasonable. An unreasonable by.
law Is yoid.-Boe. Abr, title Bylaw, 2
Kyd on Corps, 107; Durham Us. Roches-
ter, Corps, 4G4; 1 billions Munieip.
Corps. I'D ed.), Sec 32I, and cases there
cited.
In England, says Judge Dillon, the sub.
| jccts upon which bylaws may be made
were not usually specified In the King
charter, and it became an established doc
trine OF the courts that every corporation
had the implied or Incidental right to pass
bylaws; but this power was accompanied
with these limftations-namely, that every
bylaw must be reasonable, not inconsistent
with the charter OF the corporation, nor
1 "a. fttta - wit \,
the general principles Of the common law
OF the land, particularly those having
relation to the liberty OF the subject
or the rights OF private property.
In this country the courts have often
affirmed the general Incidental power
OF municipal corporations 10 make
ordinances, but have always declared that
ordinances passed in virtue OF the implied
power must be reasonable. consonant with
the general powers and purposes OF the
corporation, and not inconsistent with the
laws or policy OF the State. And so, as we
have seen, when power is conferred upon
a corporation, and the time and mode OF its
exercise is not prescribed, reasonable cx-
ercise Of the power Is required. From the
first meeting Of the Council under the
charter OF Petersburg, In July, 1916, down
TO the 18th day OF June, 1882, fixing the
time for the election Of officers by the
Council at It's first meeting in July follow
| ing the election OF any portion OF its MEN,
beers has been deemed reasonable exercise
OF the power to prescribe the time for such
elections. And In that respect its action
has undoubtedly been reasonable and free
from objection. Ii being the duty Of the
Council to elect officers, II Is incumbent on
il to discharge that duty seasonably and
without unnecessary delay. To unduly
postpone 1t would not be reasonable ex-
ereise OF the power conferred. Any ordi-
nance, therefore. unreasonably postponing
IL would be as clearly void as would be an
L "a o1,r.ras LIZ forhidden hv the fef-ms