Morning journal and courier., 1885-05-22
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Lot Owners Not Obliged to Keep
 Sidewalks Free From Snow and
 Ice-CItIes Have No Right to Nm.
 hict a Penalty for Neglect.
 An interesting decision, important to every lot
 owner in cities has just been rendered by the Su-
 preme court of Illinois, in which it is held that
 city has not the constitutional power to require the
 owner or occupant of premises to keep the side
 walk and gutters in front thereof free from snow and ice, or to sprinkle the with ashes sand where the snow and ice cannot be removed without injury to the pavement and inict fine on him for
 neglect failure so to do. Referring to contrary cases the court said:
 "The cases go to the length of sustaining the doc nounce the doctrine that sucn improvements may be compelled under the general police power. If presume that the owner could be compelled to con struct and keep in repair public roads, bridges and lands, or the owner of city or village lot could be compelled to make and repair the street in front public highway, appropriated it is true, to pedes trlans alone but still open and free to all persons
 is ss much public hs5way in the mode of ts use m as the street itself Tie difference in the manner of otSer They are both free @ to be properly sed and enjoyed by the entire public and are constructed
 That the legislature may afford the necessary power of constructing such Improvements so essen tally necessary to the comfort and convenience of the community, is apparent; but under our consti- tuition think the mode authorized in this case is not sanctioned. Even the police power. com prehensive it is, has some limitations It cannot be held to sanction the taking of private property for public without making just compensation therefor, however essen tial this mi ht be for the time to the public health, safety, etc. And, upon like principle a vate individual, except authorized in cases to exercise the right of eminent domain or by virtue of proper proceedings 10 enforce special assess mentS or special taxation. The drainage of mala- rial swamps would surely largely contribute to promote the public health; but could it be con tended that, therefore, the burden of such drainage may be laid upon some single person to De selected, or upon those who happen to own the adjacent dry land in disregard of the prn- cples applicable to special assessments and special taxation? Undoubtedly, the allowing of ice and nuisance, but it must be public nuisance and one too not caused by the act of the adjacent property holder, but solely by the action of the elements No questions the right of the munich pality to prevent such of property and such action of the citizen may be injurious to the public; but the adjacent lot owner has no or control of the adjacent street, an this ordinance seeks to control the action of no one while the street. The lot owneri is held responsi ole solely and simply for the accident of owning property near the nuisance He may have more than if his property miles away. Still he is held responsible for result he could con tIol and to the production of which he did even theoretically contribute The gist of the whole ar gument is merely that it is convenient to hold him responsible It is not perceived why it would not be equally convenient to hold him responsible for the entire police government of so much of the