Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-16

tne capacity OF . local legislature are
particularly charged with the care OF
the public morals and the public health
within their own jurisdiction.
SIN sscertaining their rights and lia-
bilities Is o corporation or as IN indi-
yidual We must not consider their legis-
lative character. They had no power.
as . party, to make . contract which
should control or embarrass their legis-
lative powers and duties. Their enact
ments in their legislative capacity are
to have the same effect upon their indi-
viduAl acts rs upon those Of any other
persons. or the public at large, and no
other effect.
The liability Of the defendants,
therefore, upon the covenant in ques-
tion must be the same as If it had been
entered into by an individual, and the
effect Of the bylaw upon it the same
as il that bylaw had been an act Of the
State Legislature. 1t is expressly au-
thorized by the Legislature, and whe-
ther it be their act or an act of the local
legislature makes no difference
In the subsequent case Of Coates rs.
The Mayor, &C., Of New York. Cow,
5s5-it was held in respect to the same
bylaw that IT was not unconstitutional.
either as impairing the obligation Of
contracts or taking private property for
public use without just compensation
but that it was clearly valid as police
regulation in respect to nuisances. And
it was also held that bylaw which is
otherwise valid need not recite on Its
face that it is necessary, but that such
necessity is implied by the act Of pass
ing it. /" 1t is Of the nature Of legisla-
tive bodies" said the Court, - to judge
of the exigency upon which their laws
are founded, and when they speak their
judgment is implied in the law itself.
II is sufficient, therefore, to set it forth
in pleading. This is equivalent to an
averment that the exigency has arisen,
been adjudicated, and acted upon. Ali
to be shown beyond this ID matter by
which the court may see that the law
operates upon the subject Of the power.
The implied adjudication is then taken
as conclusive
In Lake View rs. Rose Hill Cemetery
Compaby-70 H., l9l-the Court,
speaking of the police power, says ::
"As a general proposition, it may be
stated, it is the province of the law
making power to determine when the
exigency exists calling into exercise
this power. What are the subjects Of
its exercise is q judicial question"
The same principle was acted upon
in City Of Salem rs. Eastern Railroad
Companies Mass, 43l-wherein cer-
tain proceedings OF the Board of Health
of the city were objected TO because
they had been taken without previous
notice to the parties affected thereby.
But the objection was not sustained.
See also Foote rs. The Fire Department.
&C.. Hill, 90; Metropolitan Board OF
Health Is. Hester, 81 n. Y, 6Gl
Slaughter House cases, l6 Wall, sc :
Beer Company rs. Massachusetts,, g.
L. S., 25; Butchers Union Company
rs. Crescent City Company, III Ib..
746; Justice rs. Commonwealth mot
yet reported).
These principles apply to and are de-
cisiye Of the present case. 1t is need
less, therefore, to inquire whether
powder.magazine in q populous part Of
city is at common law a nuisance per Sc,
though there are authorities which hold
that It isl Russ. on crimes, 32l;
Cheathsm rs. Shearon. Swami Tenn,
2l3. 1t is sufficient to say that the
storage of gunpowder in city or town
being attended with danger, its regula-
ton Is matter within the power Of the
corporate authorities, and consequently
the judgment of the City Council as ex-
pressed in the ordinance requiring the
removal Of the magazines in question
is conclusive upon the courts.
The Hastings Court, therefore, did
not err in instructing the jury that
4" the fact that the city Of Richmond
in lSGG sold to the defendants, or
to those under whom they claim title.
the site Of the powder-magazines now
ordered by the Council to be removed
for the purpose or with the knowledge
that the same was to be used for the
erection Of powder-magazineS does not
prevent the City Council from passing
the ordinance of August II, 1882, if,
in the judgment Of that body, the
safety or convenience Of the people de-
mands the removal Of said maya
zines"
1t was also contended in the argu-
ment for the city that the power con-
ferred upon the corporation by its char
ter to "provide suitable magazines in
or near the city for the storage Of gun
powder or other combustible and
dangerous articles " cannot be delegated
by the city to others, and therefore that
the original grant Of the privilege to the
defendants was ultra rires and void.
But as what has already been said
sufficiently disposes Of the case, it is
unnecessary to pass upon that question.
The judgment is affirmed.
Temperance Meetings.