The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-02-09

Mr.. Elliott says (Roads & Streets
Sec. 421), Power over roads and>
streets resides in the legislature. and
ecept In so far as restricted by con-
stitutional provisions, the legislative
power is practically unlimited; that
the local governmental instrumental
ties derive their authority from legis-
lattve enactments has often been af-
frmed and there is no diversity of
opinion upon the question; the legis-
lature may, in the absence of consti-
tutional restrictions, exercise author
lty over the streets Of the municipal
ity, without obtaining the consent of
Its officers or submitting the matter
to Its Inhabitants. So it may at any
time resume authority that it has del
egated to the municipalities of the
state" Again (Sec. 423) he says:
The legislative power rests upon the
principal that the ultimate preparatory
right In highways is in the state. AS
long as highway exists it is owned by
the state. The ownership is not d.
vested by change in the local govern
ment, nor indeed, by dissolution Of
the public corporations within which
the highway is located, for upon the
dissolution of such corporation, the
control vests in the legislature or other
bodies, or officers created or desig-
mated by the legislature"
Municipalities are but arms or Or
gans created by the state; they are
governmental agencies and the meas
ure of their power is the charter from
the state; this is true as to terrific
ries also; municipality has only the
powers expressly granted to it and
those necessary, not convenient, to the
exercise of the powers expressly
granted; a municipality, simply be-
cause 1T would be convenient, or ex-
pedient for 1t to grant a franchise,
has no power SO to do; before a mu-
nicipality may grant a franchise of
the use of its streets for any purpose
for which the streets was not orig
inally dedicated, that is except for
passage to and from upon it, must
have an express delegation of power
vested in the sovereign; the granting
OF such franchise is an exercise of
the power of sovereignty; such a
franchise may be granted by the
state, or if granted by the municipal
ity such power must have been ex-
pressly delegated by the sovereign.
% Ency. Of L. End, Ed. GIG, 150-
151; 2 Dillon on Nun. Corp.
691, us, ZIG; Cooley Const.
Linn. 252; Tiedeman on Nun.
Corp. Sec. 295; Nellis on st.
r. R. Sec. 4; McQuillan on Mum.
Ord. Sec. SOS, page sS1; Nibbing
vs.. Chicago, 173 Ill. 81; Snider
vs.. Pulaski, 176 Ill. 1917: Co.
vs.. Russellville, JOG KY. 667, 81
s. w. 30S; Switzerland VS.. Bal
ley, 1875 Mich. 104; Blaschko VS..
Wurster,, 1856 N. Y. 437; Bates
VS.. Holbrook, III N. Y. AGO;
Walla Walla VS.. w. w. w. Co.,
172 U. s. 1, at page 8; Potter
VS.. Collins. 1856 N. Y. 16, SO N.
w. 413; Milhau vs.. Sharp, q
N. Y. Gil; Davis vs. Mayor, IA
N. Y. 406; Nash VS.. Lowry, 81
Mimi. 361, SO N. W. 7S7; Peo-
pie VS.. O'Brien ct al, Ill N. Y.
1; Beekman VS.. Co., 1853 N. Y.
IA, AZ N. E. 277; Detroit Ct.
st. Ry. Co. VS.. Detroit Ry. Co.,
III U. s. 4S; d. & S. Ry. Co.
vs.. Denver City Ry. Co., 2 Colo.
67S; Chicago vs.. Evens, "a Ill.
So; Horner vs.. Eaton Rapids,
1872 Mich. III; Eichols vs..
Evansville, st. Ry. Co., IS Ind.
261.
Mr. niIIo,, y, b;c ,,,o,,1, ~, ...,,..-..,