The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-08-16
rhe poWer q cIty corp0rations.


The following letter from Hon. W. ?.
Harris, is addressed to the Mayor Of
Bay St. Louis, and is in response to an
inquiry as to the powers which may be
exercised consistently with the consti
tuition by the authorities of that city
under the recent charter. Although
the opinion of Judge Harris has a
local significance, the principle laid
down will apply as well to the govern
ment of other towns or cities:
Jackson Miss, Aug. 4, 1882
To the Mayor of Bay st. Louis:
Dear Sir-The Constitution of the State, Sec
ton Il, of article g. gives TO the Legislature
power to create and abolish inferior courts.
Corporation courts are in this category. The
31st section, article ], empowers the Legislature
10 vest in justices of the peace and sueh
other inferior courts as may be established IN
der article 6, jurisdiction over minor offences,
the proceedings in such cases to be regulated
BY law Under this power to regulate the
proceedings, the Legislature has rightly as
stunned that it may dispense with the Constr
tutionaI Jury of twelve and substitute six, and
The right of appeal from the judgments OF
justices of the peace is secured, but not from
the judgments of other inferior tribunals es-
tablisked by the Legislature, so that as to cor
poratiou courts, bot the jury trial and the ap-
peal NAV be denied It was never supposed
that where the power to create inferior trib-
unals existed the Legislature could not provide
for the trial of o certain class of minor
offences without fury and without appeal
OF this class AIRED drunkenness profane swear
ing and debauchery, gaming, Sabbath breaking
and the like.
The power, however, is expressly given
to the Legislature 10 vest jurisdiction over
this class of minor olfenses in inferior courts
exclusively or concurrently, and, having full
power to regulate the trials and over the mat
ter of appeals, may dispense with jury, and
with the appeal.
In constituting the charter of Bag ST. Louis
we have to look to the question of legislative
intent only for there is no dispute about the
poYer. | am constrained to think tha5 if it
was the design TO give to the corporation power
to legislate by ordinance, to protect morality,
secure order and deceney, and to the mayors
court jurisdiction to enforce the ordinances,
and of this there can be no doubt the offences
Of drunkenness insulting language and kim
bred disorders may b. prohibited and punished
by the corporate authorities.
know that as a rule Of construction where
such powers are given in general terms to
municipal bodies, some courts have announced
that such general terms viii not embrace
offences or acts which are indictable under
the general laws of the State. This rule,
however, has not received general assent, and
besides its ablest advocates admit that where
The act is such as from its nature becomes
peculiarly mischieyous in cities, such as drunk
e ness in the streets, loud and obscene Ian
guage etc, the rule does not apply indeed
AXE away the power by such construction,
and you have no effective power in the cor
iia yrA pol a nd
order. On the ground, therefore which seems
70 be relied on as effecting the validity of the
ordinance in question, towit: The omissions
of trial by jury, and the appeal, and the alleged
ground that the acts prohibited by the ordi-
nances are punishable by the general law,
dissent from the views of Chancellor Wood,
and believe the ordinance valid, notwithstand
ing these objections. W. P. HARRIS