Evening star., 1903-07-15
REGULATIONS UPHELD
Justice Gould's Decision in
Automobile Case.
RULES DISCHARGED
VALIDITY OF LAW GOVERNING
HORSELESS VEHICLES.
Court Regards Them as Reasonable
and Declines to Interfere With
Their Enforcement.

The Supreme Court of the District OF Co
lumbia today upheld the validity and rea-
sonableness of the horseless vehicle regula-
tions. when Justice Gould. In Equity court
No. discharged the rules requiring the
District Commissioners to show cause why
they should not be restrained from putting
into effect the regulations adopted. which
have heretofore been published and are
ready for official promulgation-
The decision was In connection with the
proceedings for injunction. two cases, IN
stituted by Carl ]. Lockwood, dealer IN
mobiles, on behalf of himself and number
of others similarly situated. In passing
upon the issue Justice Gould explained that
a court has no right to substitute lts au-
thority for that of the District COMMISSION
ers, and that only when an action py tne
Commissioners is manifestly unreasonaoie'
or when there Is such usurpatlon o1
power as to affect property rights shoulo
. court Interfere Justice Gould added that
there is absolutely no doubt In MS miho
that the proposed regulations are not un-
reasonable and do not constitute usurpd-
ton of power.
Power Of Commissioners.
Justice Gould remarked that Congress has
delegated the control Of the streets IN tie
District of Columbia to the Commissioners b
In the Lockwood case. the court aooeo'
question of power was not 1nvoiVed' tne
issue being the exercise or power anu
whether such exercise was reasonable. ohe
of the objections to the regulations urgeo
by the complainant was that tney uls-
criminate between mobiles. on the one
hand and vehicles drawn by horses on tne
other hand. According to Justice Gould.
classification of automobiles ana OF Ve-
hicles drawn by horses, so far as the use
of the streets is concerned, Is entlreiJ piop
er and reasonable.
Another objection urged by the complain
ant was that the regulations permitted an
arbitrary discretion to be exercised by the
Commissioners. In the opinion OF Justice
Gould an arbitrary power must exist In a
municipal governing body. If such power
is used unreasonably. however, 1t was
pointed out, the courts may then inter-
fere.
AS to property rights. Justice Gould mem
toned that all property is held subject to
the limitations Of law; owners Of real estate
are restricted in their use Of the same IN
many ways.
the District Commissioners have before
them the delicate task of adjusting the
rights of users of the streets, the courts Will
not interfere unless in the event OF pal
pabIe violation of authority, and In this In
stance the court finds none. The rules 10
show cause will be discharged"
Appeal to Higher Court.
Attorney Wilton ]. Lambert, OF counsel
for the complainant, gave notice OF the cal
endering of the cause for final decree based
on the bill of complaint. the answer and
afidavits II the decree is against the
complainant, as it is practically certain to
be, in view OF the decision today, is Is stated
that an appeal to the Court OF Appeals VIII
be noted and presented -. .t.-,.. ..-,.-
The question of the jurisdiction OF court
of equity to pass upon the reasonableness
or. unreasonableness OF municipal regula-
tions, which was one Of the issues in the
Lockwood case, was left open by Justice
Gould, as he did not consider that 1t was
essential for him to decide 1t.