The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-28

I'D or perverted to other uses.
Whatever has been done in the way OF
hanging signs across the sidewalks IN the
past has been by the tacit assent OF tAe
city authorities revocable at will when-
ever they deem such mode of swinging
signs injurious to the appearance OF the
city. 1t would be strange II II were
otherwise, seeing that in England
whence We derive our common law, 1or
hundreds of years signs have not oeen
allowed TO project over the sidewalks, pat
are placed fat against the wall OF each
place of business There is probably no
town in the United Kingdom, however
small in which signs are allowed TO hahg
across the sidewalks, and the same is
true of the countries of Western Europe
generally The same ordinance has been
adopted by many cities in this country
and in few years will doubtless become
the general if not the universal RUE.
After most diligent search by counSel ana
the court no decision has been FOUND
from any court in any country, till now,
which denies the power of the town coun-
Gil to pass ordinance like that now
called in question. The powers of city
government are not restricted to sup
pressing what is dangerous, but extend to
adjoining and identifying the city (when
they possess the funds) and to removing
from the public streets that which mars
their appearance, and equally that which
is unpleasant to the eye as that which is
disagreeable to the nose.
This particular sign may be ornamen-
tai. and so may others, but if the board
of aldermen think the custom of hanging
signs over the sidewalks injurious to the
appearance of the streets, they could pass
this ordinance mpartially ordering the
removal of all signs hung across the
| sidewalks. Now that there is a spirit
springing up in favor of identifying our
| cities and towns, it is TO be regretted
| that the cold shadow of "a judicial inhibl-
| ton should fall upon the movement in
this State to chill it.
THE people of Raleigh, acting through
their duly elected board of aldermen,
should certainly be able to decide wheth-
er they wished these signs removed or
not, and if the aldermen do not correct
ly express public opinion, the next board
of aldermen will permit the swinging
signs to go back. Local self government
demands that much The people OF any
town can decide such questions for them
selves better than the courts. 1t is hard
ly to be conceived that any part of the
functions of the Supreme court of
State is to act as supervisory board or
! public works to pass upon, restrict or
veto the action of the board of aldermen
of any town upon such matters as the
present
Here, the regulation of the streets,
and the removing of what therein i'm
+Ia;,, INN irS hni
ance is for the town authorities 10 de-
eide, and they ought to decide it. subject
to correction only by the people of the
town at the ballot box, who are the best
Judges of what is proper and meet as to
such matters for their own municipality.
The defendant has no property rights in
the streets more than any one else who
uses them. His land ends where his deed
calls for i. e. at the edge of the sidewalk
next to his store Whatever privileges
he is allowed over the sidewalk or in the
air above it. more than belongs TO ali
alike, is mere taclt license from the
town, revocable at its Will ~
Cases from the Eighth district were
argued in the Supreme Court yester1
day as follows: -f.
.
eral for State; p. r. Means for de-
PENDANT
State V. Harrison. by Attorney Cen
eral for State: l.. c. Caldwell, W. ID.
Turner for defendant.
Robinson V. Ingram. by w. {. Don-
glass and w. J. Montgomery for plain
tiff: Adams d Jerome and Bennett
Bennett for defendant.
Appeals from the Ninth district will
be called on next Tuesday. April 3, as
follows:
State V. Smith
Wall V. Wall.
Glenn V. Wray.
OVERLY V. OVERLY.
Echerd V. Johnson.
Bowles V. Caudle.
Gray V. Little.
Dyer V. Ellington.
Foy Y. Winston.
Mott T. Griffith.
Mott v Commissioners.