Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1885-07-01
THE Bicycle CASE.
Arguments Before His Honor, Judge
letters, Yesterday.
The Riders Advised to Seek the Re-
peal Of the Ordinance at the
Hands of the City
Council.

The hearing OF the arguments of counsel
in the case Of the City vs.. John Topping,
charged with an infrsction of section rs Of
the ordinance in relation to offenses, in that,
on the I'D day of June, he engaged in rid
ing bicycle on Virginia street. Island, took
place In the Municipal Court yesterday
afternoon, and excited considerable interes
among the owners of machines. The city
was represented by Solicitor o. Keeffe, while
81. NJ. Russell appeared for the defense
The latter opened his argument about three
o'clock. Counsel for the prisoner, after
citing q number of authorities bearing upon
the ease, said he intended to make q state
ment which would possibly somewhat sur.
prise a number of members Of Council. The
City of Wheeling did not own the streets.
They belonged to the State, as public thor.
oughtares, and the city was
MERELY TRUSTEE,
with much the same powers as that vested
in a road overseer. The streets are public
thoroUghfares for common use, and it was
for this purpose that thesState had given
the city control over them The passage oil
citizens along them is to be free and unob-
structed, and they may be used BY such
class of vehicles as may suit the convenience,
habits or incGnstions of the occupants or
owners. The city, as q matter of fact,
owned but two streets within the corpora
ton lines. and they were between the Sixth
and Eighth wards. There was no statute
| or history of the State from which it can be
| inferred that it ever was the intention Of
those having the making of our laws to say
that riding or driving bicycle was not q
perfectly legitimate method of
WASTING TINE.
1t might be urged by those who sought to
enforce this ordinance that there was nc
specific law on our statute books authoriz
ing the use of bicycles. That was true, but
when those persons should show him spe-
cifc law prohibiting a man taking his sweet
heart buggy.riding he would find some an
swer other than the one he had given. The
attempt on the part of the friends of the
ordinance was contrsyention OF The gen.
| eral laws of the State, which allow the use
of thoroughfares for the convenience and
| pleasure of the people. 1t was not neces
sary to point out the specific law which the
| ordinance controverted. 1t was sufficient
10 show that it was at varience with the
common law of the land, and particularly
that relating to the liberty of the person
Council could not be unreason'
able. 1t was not
| "A LITTLE EMPIRE IN ITSELF"
1t could not unreasonably enjoin and re.
strict man in the enjoyment of bis liberty.
The ordinance was a restriction
on the undoubted right of all persons to
use the thoroughfares for unrestricted pas
sage, in such vehicles as he or she may
elect 1t should be declared void (l) be,
cause it was unreasonable; (2) because it
was in defiance of the laws of the State;
| (3) because it contravened the right OF
every man to use his property as might
seem best to him.
Mr.. O'Keefe, for the city, followed. THE
question was, Is the ordinance unreasona
Die? Did it deprive the owner of bicycle
of the use of his property 1t was not to
be contended that the youngsters ofthe city
were to be allowed to take possession OF the
streets to the detriment of the inhabitants
If it be conceded that bicycle, propelled
BY human power, is lawful, might it not,
with equal Justice be allowable, for steam
bicycles to be put upon our streets? He
did think much of the talk of the ordinance
being q contrsvention of citizens personal
liberty. If man should choose to
RIDE A BUFFALO
through the streets, that act would be the
making use of personal property in the
manner desired by the owner, but would
not Council have the power to prohibit such
an action? 1t had been claimed by counsel
for the defense that the bicycle was very
easily managed, but the fact that chilo
had been struck was pretty good reply to
that claim. He had seen it stated in daily
paper of this city-thst a well-known pro
fessionsl gentleman intended to shortly in
troduce bicycle run by steam. Ifhs die
so, bis action would probably be initiated
oy others. There could be no doubt but
that such machines would be q nuisance
and council could prohibit their use
| Council wss vested with discretion in such
matters, and it certainly
| HAD me
to make the regulation contained in the or
| dinance.
Counsel for the defense thought the en-.
deavor 10 make the bicycle plaything was
rather strained IL the face of the fact that
they were used for business purposes ell
over the civilized world, and riders were
steadily growing in numbers. Counsel had
sought TO make riding bicycle parable!
case with man riding buffalo. The only
similarity he could see was that both com
meuced with 10" He submitted that
even a man on buffalo could not be inter
ferred with ifit was nice, quiet buffalo, il
| thirty or forty other citizens kept butfslos
and made practice CT riding them either
! in the way of business or pleasure, and il
| the use of buffslos for such purposes obtain
! ed in all the States O. the Union and in ali
the countries ofthe world. That would put
the buffalo on
TIE SAME FOOTING
with the bicycle, and Council might regulate
but it could not prohibit. The counsel had
referred TO the fact that child had been
struck as an argument against the ma
chine. 1t was rather an argument in favor
Of it, from the fact that although the child
had been hit it was not hurt. If it had
been q wagon or buggy the probabilities
were The child would have been killed, but
when hit by the bicycle the child had
scrambled to Its feet and walked of. Not
a very dangerous machine, surely.
At the confusion of the arguments, His
Honor announced that he would consider
the case, but advised those who thought the
ordinance an infringement Of their rights tn
ask Council to repeal the law.
The finest horss racing this season takes
place at the Maennerchor, Beethoven and
I'll