The sun., 1907-08-14
CITY FINES UNDER STATE Law
SUPREME COURT RULING As TO
AUTO SPEEDING IGNORED.

| Ordinance ano asnsa Mnsav vsP,icie
law Arc Nos Connios,ns. r says.
Tho Court OF Special sessions. sitting In
the ola To- Iy.IS =. J.~..t.. ,~....r,,.- .
o ou owu "a. ~ SeAA, yo'.oruey
| ss-,Ini1e - ~ - H
| "no nse Pioe~ou e.ASy ~
inc cnAfge OF exceeding the spceo nInit'
In 10 doing t explained why It did not follow
the decision given last week by Supreme
Court Justice Truax. which held that the
| State Law making violations of the epeed
limit n rnirdeneanor had been .uperreded
| hv tba ord,r.nc. v,a..ad ~ ,ha E,oard ~
| AId.r,r.,, ,,nd.~ -. .,,.hsvI.,r .ous.~r.,I
] -. - - - y 49, -
~ ~, s"o voeau W Cuo inoeo' vonIo,o
inst orotnAnce DIRECTS tnst onenoers %
summary punsnoo oy fohce maghstraeo
| with hne OF not less than u or moro than
| $40.
| Justice John Fleming. who presided. said
| besora bs ir,posed tha dps. that ba did an
| ,ri,h ,h. m.nc.to,, 20 III. ...,,,..~. r,.,,oo.
| rN~,. w,s,,-t wnNS.. -.
| ~ O~o. so p'o1
eIs Deiore nli, ana toiu tnem Oh the oecision
OF Justice Truax and said that they had
| right to plead not guilty by reason OF that
| decision.
| -While this court entertains the highest
respect for tho court that handed down the
| decision" said the presiding Justice, we
40 not propose TO follow that opinion. We
may % wrong In doing 90. Tho Justice
tnen intunated that ne wouio IKE test
case maao. hter Imposing tne nhes ne
nanoed GOWN wrnten opinion on the SUD-
'eo' 'o"o"'
| In the absence OF any statute upon the
subject OF motor vehicles the city might
nave passed an ordinance liking their speed
Wuhin any iimitsano imposing TOT ts VIOLATION
punishment heavier than Is now provided
n n n NJ N nTd
subject only TO the review OF the courts as 10
its reasonableness; but the Legislature OF the
state. by act OF 1905. for reasons that are evil
dent. expressly takes away from cities ana
Incorporated villages the power to enact
ordinances that reduce the speed OF such
vehicles lower than the State allows by the
act. As bearing upon the question: TINS
substantially IL all the act does.
Such provisions should not imply that
ordinances consistent with the Limitation
should be treated as exclusive legislation
upon the subject, and there Ia not word IN
the act expressly declaring the State law
TO become imperative In cities that pass
such ordinances Unless it Is clearly the In
tent Of the Legislature TO withdraw the laws
of the State from all cities and villages that
enact ordinances containing the limitations
referred to. the State law should be held TO
apply to all such cities. and all such ordinances
consistent with the state law should be held
as running concurrent.
or course II this be 30 it leaves the offender
liable TO two punishments, but there is nothing
extraordinary in this and there is nothing
In the act OF 1904 to indicate that this result
was not Intended. The provisions TO the
effect that new penalties TO be fixed by or
dinance shall supersede those hNed in the
act mean only that the cities passing or
dinances upon the subject shall not be held
down to the precise punishment mentioned
in the act. but that each city shall determine
for itself what penalties are reasonable TO
protect itself against the violations OF the
police law. The power OF the city govern
ment Is not exclusive as to the subject. out
power added to that exercised by the State
and city.
As has been often said, The people or
cities are governed much more than the
people of the state generally. Cooley IN
his work on constitutional law says. The
same act may constitute an offence both
against the state and the municipal cor
poration. and both may punish without any
violation OF constltuti0nal prlnclple ANA
80 10 has been held that a conviction under
city ordinance for keeping gaming house
Ia no bar to a prosecution for the same offence
by the state.
The conditions that led to this act OF 1904
are we'll known ana " IL prooaole that the
Legislature REGARDED It's reckless vioiatlon
pretty much az the courts regard Vloiauons
OF the law against gaming houses NAHUM
IN Sc, and meant II To operate IN the cities as
in the rest OF the state, and that cities. where
the danger Is greatesV shouio retain con-
current nsnt 70 '.hpose pun.'n'.es.
IL seems 10 me .hal 'he ec.' 90 oo'np'e,e III
details. was meant 10 supper. tne eooo orueI
and dignity OF the whole state ana tnat u
would fail essentially II cities should nuliify
it by imposing vexatious burdens upon those
who operate the motor vehicles. or by grant
ing too great privileges. The act restrsins
the former. but the latter is left open. the
Ieeislsture recognizing that IL no ordinance
vas nsssed or one Imposing nominal punish
r,.nt ,hat ,b. nunisbment under the State
Provisions in the act to the effect that