The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-12-19
SNOW ORDINANCE
IS ATTACKED IN
COURT HEARING

An interesting question for the eve
| OF winter was argued in the supreme
| court today.
J. Wilson McCrillis on Feb. .. 1906,
was convicted for violation OF ordi-
nance requiring real estate owners TO
remove snow from the sidewalks I'm
front OF their property. The sidewalk
where the snow lay was in front or an
unimproved lot; and Mr.. McCrillis took
an appeal
y. w Littlefield, his counsel argued
today that the ordinance is illegal be-
cause at the time OF it's passage and
since then the city has had no power
or authority under the laws OF the
state 10 pass such an ordinance.
He contended, also, that the ordi-
nance is contrary 10 article l. section
g OF the constitution OF the state,
which declares that Flaws therefore
should be made for the good OF the
whole, and the burdens OF state ought
TO be fairly distributed among It's clti-
zens and that the court had no au-
thority under the law TO impose n fine
OF $50 upon Mr.. McCrillis.
Further claims were that the ordi-
nance is contrary to article l OF sec
ton l6 OF the state constitution, which
declares that private property shall
not be taken for public use without
Just compensation" and contrary TO
the 14th amendment OF the constitu-
tion OF the United States
The ordinance directs that the owner,
occupant or any person having the care
OF any building or lot OF land bordering
on any street, square or public place with
IN tho city. shall within the first four
hours or daylight after snow ceasing 10
fall, cause II TO be removed from TIE
sidewalk adjoining said building or lot os
land; and each and every hour after the
expiration OF said four hours that the
Far a In np he ali datu liz alan ha
deemed to be separate violation OF the
statute
Mr.. Littleheld described very fully the
inconvenences liable 10 arise from this
ordinance and the hardships It might i'm
pose. He then argued that while the
ordinance was convenient, IL is not need |
full " for II could not be said that the city
or Providence was not as well able 10
remove the snow from the sidewalks az
from the rest OF the streets.
II valid reason can be given for re- |
quiring an abutting owner to remove the
snow from the sidewalks. he said, then |
the same reason would apply with equal |
force to removing snow from that portion |
OF the highway Travelled by horses ana |
carriages
The sole purpose OF the act Mr.. Little |
field maintained, is to shift 10 private |
parties the burden and duty of the city |
to keep its highways passable.
City Solicitor Baker I'm his brief wen, !
extensively into the history OF this class |
Of legislation He maintains that under |
the city charter, as we'll as under the |
broad delegation by police and other pow
ers under Gen. Laws Chap. 10, section q, |
the city has authority TO pass such an or |
dinance.
This is the first time the authority OF |
the city council in this matter, Mr.. Baker |
urged. has been questioned, although the |
ordinance has been in force for 73 years |
here and In Newport and other cities OF |
the state for many years.
'If,' he said" there was no authority |
10 pass such an ordinance. 1t Is remarka-
BILE that, I'm Hervey VS.. Sprague II r /. |
456 in which the present chief justice was !
80 important a case should not
have been contested on the ground that !
the ordinances in question were unauthor- |
lied and void; and the eminent counsel |
on both sides and Durfee G. J. all recog- |
nized the validity Of this ordinance"
Mr. Baker further argued that the or |
dlnance did not violate any rights given |
to McCrillis by the constitution OF the |
United States or the constitution OF this |
state