The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-10-21

e+.nces in and under which parties shall
assert, enjoy or exercise their rights, Win
o,1t coming in conflict with any OF tnose
constitutional principles which are es-
tabished for the protection OF private
rights or private property. Cooley on
constitutional limitations, p. 7i5
In speaking of the extent Of this power,
and applying it to specific cases, 1t was
said by Paynter, J., in Dunn VS.. Common
wealth, Court Of Appeals of Kentucky,
March 8, 1880 43 L. r. n, 'm, that, 1t
has been held by courts that, under the
police power, municipalities can regulate
the height OF buildings in cities. prescribe
the streets upon which persons driving
certain class of vehicles shall travel, and
prohibit them from travelling upon other
streets, and regulate the hours at winch
public places, places OF amusement ana
soloons shall be closed The legislatures
of the States can enact laws to regulate
the employment OF children of certain
ages, and prohibit women from engaging
in certain kinds Of employment. 1t has
been held by some courts that a penalty
can be imposed upon livery stable. keepers
for giving credit to pupils without the con-
sent of the college authorities. 1t has
been held to protect laborers against OPP
preston Of their employers, that it is
competent to forbid them being paid any
thing except legal tender funds.
In Brady VS. Milledgeville. "A Ga. 516, it
was held that a city may enforce an ordl-
nance Furnishing street-walkers for tolter-
ing about the streets or stores at night.
In the case of Crowley VS.. Christensen,
1877 u S.. S. Mr.. Justice Field. speaking
upon the subject OF what limitation may
! be put upon the enjoyment Of rights
guaranteed by the constitution, uses this
language: THE possession and enjoyment
of all rights are subject to such reason
able conditions as may be deemed by the
governing authority Of the country essen
tial to the safety. health. peace, good
order and morals of the community
WAS UNREASONABLE
Apparently, there are cases which con-
f1ict with these principles thus enuncated
by text-wTiters and courts, and which
held that similar ordinances to the one
proposed imposes unreasonable restraints
upon the rights OF citizens. Among these,
the most pertinent l have been able to
find is the case eX parte Carver, 46 S. w.
Reports, 926, where a curfew ordinance,
prohibiting persons under twenty-one years
OF age from being on the streets after nine
O'Clock in the evening, unless with parent
or guardian. or in search of 4 physician,
was held TO be an unreasonable exercise
Of the general powers Of a city to pre-
serve lIi1 peace ttill ~ DiolGil Lie
order and morals Of the community. It
is to be observed, in reference to that
case and the ordinance there under re-
view, that the age limit was placed at
twenty-one years, whereas under the pro-
posed ordinance here the age limit is
fifteen years. The ordinance there was
proposed to be passed in a small town,
containing a population Of less than 10000:
while here it is proposed to be adopted
=, ,f-,.y -sl1 lln
the cases make the question Of the valid-
" of the ordinance turn on the question
Of its reasonableuess. Our own Supreme
Court of Appeals, speaking on this sub
iect has recently said. in the case Of
Washington. &c, Railway Co. VS.. City
Council, Virginia Supreme Court Repor-
ter, vol. 2 p. 3l5) that, ''in determining
this question the court will regard all
the circumstances of the particular city
or corporation. the subject sought to be
attained, and the necessity which exists
for the ordinance. Regulations proper for
q large and prosperous city might be ab-
surd or oppressive in a small and sparsely
populated town, or in the country If,
therefore, the validity of the ordinance
ever comes under review in the court. it
viii become necessary not only to look
at the ordinance itself, but to consider the
conditions and circumstances that seem to
demand the proposed legislation. If the
circumstances are shown to be such as
one OF the members of your committee
eMr Ihomasson) stated to me. were
shown to the committee to exist, demand
Ing this legislation. it seems to me but
one answer could be made on the question
| OF the reasonabeness OF the ordinance.
l am, therefore, clearly Of opinion that
if the proposed ordinance be passed no
court would be justified under the con-
sutution and laws Of the land in declaring
it illegal or invalid
The ordinance seems to be carefully
drawn, and in my opinion, clearly and
fully meets the object had in view.