Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1909-10-06
AUTOMOBILE CASE.
Law Court says Bar Harbor Law Is
Constitutional.

i The law court Saturday handed down
rescript in the Bar Harbor AUTOMOBILE
case declaring that the ordinance passes
its confines is constitutional. The case i
State of Maine VS.. 8. H. Mayo, and tn
rescript, drawn by Associate Justice Arm,
w. King, is as follows
The respondent was found guilty of violat
ing an ordinance of the town Of Eden, passes
under special legislative authority, CLOSING
| to the use of automobiles certain public
streets in that town, and the only question
/ presented to this court is as to the constitu
tionaiity of that ordinance.
The contention of the defendant is that il
violates the fourteenth amendment of the
l constitution of the United States. which de-
| clares. among other things. that state
shall deny to any person within its jurisdic-
| tion the equal protection OF the laws, and II
also denies him that equality of right guar
| anteed under section 1, article 1, OF the
Constitution Of Maine. '.of enjoying and de-
| Tending life and property, acquiring, possess
| sing and protecting property, and OF pursu-
| ing and obtaining safety and happiness"
The right to use the public streets for the
purposes of travel, as well as all personal and
property rights, is not an absolute and un-
qualified right. 1t is subject to be limited
and controlled by the sovereign authority
the state-whenever necessary to provide for
and promote the safety. peace. health, morals
and general welfare OF the people. To secure
these and kindred benefits is the purpose of
organized government, and to that end may
the power of the State, called its police
power, be used. BY the exercise OF that
power, through Legislative enactments, in
dividuals may be subjected to restraints, and
the enjoyment of personal and property
rights may be limited. even prevented, il
manifestly necessary TO develop the resources
of the State, improve its industrial conditions
and secure and advance the safety, comfort
and prosperity OF its people. And it is funda-
mental law that no constitutional guaranty is
violated by such exercise Of the police
power OF the State when manifestly necessary
and tending TO secure snch general and pub
lie benefits.
Reasonable regulations for the safety of the
people while using the public streets are
clearly within this police power of the State;
and in the exercise of that power the State
may regulate the speed. and enact other rea-
sonable rules and restrictions as to the use Of
automobiles upon the public streets.
The defendant. however, objects against the
validity OF the ord nance in question that it
applies to automobiles only, and not to all
other vehicles that use those streets. He
contends that it operates against class only,
and Is therefore special legislation which the
constitution prohibits.
A Law is not TO be regarded as class legisIa-
ton simply because il affects one class and
not another, provided it affects all members
of that class alike. and the classification in-
yolved is founded upon a reasonable basis.
Such Law is general and not special, for it
applies equally to all automobiles without
discrimination and by waomsoever owned.
The defendant further contends that this
ordinance is unreasonable and unnecessary
for the public safety and welfare.
The ordinance in question, however. was
not made under a general law, authorizing
municipalities to make reasonable regula-
tons for the safety and welfare Of the people,
but under a special law authorizing the par
ticnlar ordinances.
When the legislature has constitutional
authority to enact a law to promote the public
safety, and does enact 1t, the expediency of
its enactment is not to be passed upon by the
court In such case the legislature deter
mines by the enactment that the law is rea-
sonable and necessary.
II being, therefore, within the police power
of the legislature to enact that the particular
streets named in the ordinances in question
could be closed to the use OF automobiles, and
it having so enacted, the reasonableness and
expediency of the enactment cannot be
viewed by the court. The Judgment of the
legislature in that respect is conclusive.
In certain sections of our State, such for
example as Mount Desert island and the
vicinity of Bar Harbor, public highways have
been constructed along precipitous mountain
sides, through circuitous defles, over deep
ravines. and on the very edges of ocean cliffs.
| The such ways of the powerful,
| swiftly moving and dangerous automobile
\ must necessarily endanger all who travel
thereon, and especially those who ride in car
riages drawn by horses. Presumably to safe
| guard the people against such dangerous
conditions the legislature decided that the
ordinance in question might be made. II the
court were authorized to review that decision
it would be found, we think, justified in rea-
son and supported in judicial authority.
1t is, therefore, the opinion of the court that
/ the ordinance which the defendant admit.
tedly violated is constitutional, and accord
ingiy the entry must be judgment for ths
State.