The Richmond climax. (Richmond, Ky.) 1897-1914, 1905-02-22


Gil appointed Clark, colored boy, 4
a scholarship, and he was refused ad
mittance in 1896 and 1897, and tn
Court Of Appeals sustained tina
action.
Applying the rule announced b.
Judge DuRelle, and the doctrine o
the Maryland case, Berea COLLEGE
wouldhsve the right by bylaw or regull
ton, to exclude all except the you'll
of one race, and therefore the Govern
ment Of the state may, by law, re
quire the students to be confined t.
one race, or to enforce a separation
of the races.
1t has been said of this police DOW
er that it has been found impossible
to frame, and that indeed it is deem
ed inadvfsable to attempt to frame
any definition of the police power
which shall absolutely indicate its linn
its by including everything to which
it may extend and excluding every
thing to which it cannot extend. the
Courts considering it better to decide
as each case arises whether the DO
lice power extends thereto.
Blackstone says: "The police pow
er is that which relates to the due
regulation and domestic order of the
kingdom, whereby the individuals OF
the state, like members of a well gov
erned family, are bound to conform
/ their general behavior to the rules
of propriety, good neighboFhOod and
good manners and to be decent, in,
dustrious and inofEensive in their re
spective stations
Chief Justice R4dfeld of Vermont
in the case of Thorpe vs. Rutland etc.
62 A. D. 625, said:
by the general police power of the
state, persons and property are sub
jected to all kinds of restraints and
burdens, in order to secure the gener-
al comfort, health and prosperity of
the state; of the perfect right of the
Legislature to DO Whick no question
ever was, or upon acknowledged gen.
eral principles ever can be made"
The Illinois C0Ert has said: "The
police power of a state is co-extensiye
with self-protection, and is not inapt-
ly termed the law of overriding nee
essity. 1t is that inherent aad plen-
airy power in the state which enables
it to prohibit all things hurtful to the
comfort and welfare of society,""
Judge Bannin in his work on the
Fourteenth Amendment says: "Po-
lice Power in it's broadcast acceptance
means the general power of the gov
eminent, TO preserve and promote
public welfare, even at the expense
of private right"
The Court of Appeals of New York
in the case People VS. Budd, is A. s.
R. AGO, affirmed by the Supreme Court
in 143 U. S. SIT, said: THE very ex-
istence of government presupposes
the right of the sovereign power to
prescribe regulations demanded by
the general welfare for the common
protection of all. This principle in
heres in the very nature of the social
compact. The protection of private
property is one of the main purposes
Of government, but no one holds his
property by such an absolute tenure
as to be freed from the power Of the
Legislature to impose restraints and
burdens required by the public good,
or proper and necessary to secure the
equal rights of all" That court in the
same case said further: ut (the DO
| lice pOwer) may be exercised so as to
impair the value Of property, or limit
or restrict the use of property, yet in
this there is no infringement of the
constitutional guaranty, because that
guaranty is not to be construed as lib
Grating persons or property from the
| just control of the laws"
Judge Dillon says, 1 Munic. Corp
212: Every citizen holds his prop
erty subject to the proper exercise OF
this (police) power by the State Leg
islature 1t is well settled that laws
and regulations of this character
though they may disturb the enjoy
ment of individual rights, are not uu
constitutional, though no provision is
made for compensation for such dis
turbances."
This power in the state legislature
has always been recognized and giveI
full force by the Supreme Court Of
the United States. Lakeshore and NJ
). r. Co. vs. Ohio etc, 43 U. S. 702
The Supreme Court in the case o
Barber vs.. Connolly, 113 y. g., Il
says: But neither the Fourteenth
Amendment, broad and comprehen
siVe as It is, nor any other amend
ment was designed to interfere will
the power of the state, sometimes
termed its police power, to prescribe
regulations to promote the health
peace, morals, education and good or
der CT the people" In Boston Beer Co
VS.. Massachusetts, 81 U. s., 25, the
Supreme Court says. Whatever
differences of opinion may exist as Il
the extent ard boundaries of the pc
lice power, and however difficult il
may be to render a satisfactory defini
ton of it, there seems to be no doubt
that it does extend to the protection
of the lives, health and properly Of
the citizens, and to the preservation
of good order and the public morals
The legislature can not, by any cou
tract, divest itself of the power tC
provide for these objects. They be
long emphatically to that class Of OBJ
! jects which demand the application
of the maxim, Salus populi supreme
lex; and they are to be attained and
provided for by such appropriate
means as the legislative discretion
may devise. That discretion can nc
more be bargained away than the
power itself"
The police power in the state cor
responds to the right of self defense
in the individual, and when it comes
to a question of protection from harm
OF injury from any source. the ex-
ercise of the police power by the
state is as much duty and is as free
from restrictions as is the exercise OF
the right of self-defense by the indi
vidual. Self defense is everywhere
recognized as the first law of nature
The relative functions of the court
and the legislature when called upon
to consider questions of police power
are well stated in the Jacobs case
so A. R., 636, as follows: Generally
it is for the legislature to determine
what laws or regulations are needed
to protect the public health and secure
the public comfort and safety, and
while its measures are calculated, in
tended, convenient and appropriate
to accomplish these ends, the exercise
of its discretion is not subject to re
view by the courts. But they mus
have some relation to these ends. Un
der the mere guise of police regula
lions, personal rights and private
property can not be arbitrarily invad
ed, and the determination of the legis
lature is not final or conclusive 1