The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-06-14
the purpose and with the improper mo-

the purpose and with the Improper mo-
tive ascribed to It,
The trial court granted the Injunction
prayed for. and later perpetuated same,
except as to the ordinance requiring bar
rooms to be closed from 10 P. NJ. until
A. NJ, as provided by the old law, and
the imposition Of 500 license. From this
decree the city appealed.
The court holds. as 1t has done repeat
eddy, that the regulation of the sale of
liquors is within the police power OF the
State, a view sustained by overwhelm-
ing weight OF authority. The liquor
traffic is not one of the immunities OF
citizenship guaranteed and protected by
the Federal Constitution or amendment
thereto. The traffic may be entirely pro-
hibited. and Its regulation, when per-
mitted. is entirely within the discretion
of the several States. Many Federal
court opinions are quoted to sustain this
view. 1t is further held that the right
of a State to exercise the foregoing pow
ers is no longer an open question before
the court.
The principles enunciated In the case
OF Prison Association VS.. Ashby. 93 Vir-
ginia, and Farmville VS.. Walker. are re-
affirmed by the court and applied to the
case in point.
In the matter OF the extent to which the
Legislature has conferred power on the
city OF Danville 20 deal with the subject
Of selling liquors by retail within Its linn
its, 1t appears that the powers are con-
fcrred by those sections of the charter
giving the Council the right to grant or
refuse all licenses to sellers of liquors
under such regulations as 1t may pre-
scribe. The language in which the grant
of power Is conveyed is unmistakable and
too plain to admit of calculation. The
subject Of the suppression or control of
~ tyr tc Iaft hcol al wi hi n
the control of the Council. Within the
sphere of their delegated powers munic-
sipal corpora tions have as absolute con-
troll as the General Assembly would have
If 1t had never delegated such powers
and had exercised them by its own enact
ments, and the courts can no more In
terfere with the acts of the one than
the other. To permit such interference
would he to deny the existence of dis
cretonary power, and transfer its exer-
else from one coordinate branch of the
government to another, A dozen decis-
ions are quoted In support OF this die
tum.
AS to the unreasonableness OF the ordi-
nance, Dillon Is quoted as saying: Where
the Legislature in terms confers upon n
muncipnl corporation the power to pass
ordinances Of specific and defined char
acter II the power thus delegated be not
in conflict with the Constitution. an ordi-
HHIlNc WINS phssCu Pt'Std'lN tAS'SNo 49,
not be impeached as invalid, because It
would have been regarded as unreasona-
hle lf 1t had been passed under the Incl
dental power of the corporation or under
n grant Of power general In It's nature,
IN other words, what the Legislature dis
tlnctly says may be done cannot be set
aside by the courts because they may
deem it to be unreasonable or against
sound policy. W.
THE Legislature has invested the City
Council In this case with all It's police
power over this subject Under such
conditions no case has been found which
warrants an interference by the courts
With the discretion of the Council exer-
cised In good faith for the general well
fare of the inhabitants of the city. There
has been no excess or abuse of authority
BY the Council in this case. The only lin
itaton on such grant of power Is that
1t must be exercised In good faith,
Says Judge Whittle "In the ultimate
analysis 1t Is question of power, and
the language of the charter in question
plainly indicates n PURPOSE to Invest
the City Council with absolute control
over the sale of liquor within their ter
ritorial Jurisdiction.
Courts cannot run race of opinions
under points of right reason and expedi-
ency with the aw-makipg power"
Upon the whole case the court is of
opinion that the ordinances the validity
of which is drawn IN question: are WITHIN
the charter powers of the City Council:
that they were enacted In good faith and
are valid and binding. For these rea-
sons the decree appealed from must be
reversed.
Racksvs, p. & p. 90.
In the case of Racks administrator, VS..
the Richmond Passenger and Power
Company. Judge Cardwell delivers the
opinion of the court, which reverses and
ennuls tha fi,dpmant of the Law and