Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-10-04

Hancock COunty hcSCiiPt'
State of Maine versus S. Fl. Mayo.
Rescript by Associate Justice Arno w.
King.
The respondent was found guilty of
violating an ordinance of the IoWn
of Eden, passed under special legls-
lative authority, closing to the use OF
automobiles certain public treets IN
that town. and the only question pre-
scented to this court is as to the con-
stitutonality of that ordinance.
The contention of the defendant is
that it violates the Fourteenth Amend
ment of the Constitution of the United
States which declares, among other
things, that no state shall deny TO
any person within it's jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws; ana
that it also denies him that equality
of right guaranteed under Sec !, Art
|. of the Constitution of Maine, "of
enjoying and defending life and lib
erty. acquiring, possessing and pro-
tecting property, and of pursuing and
obtaining safety and happiness"
The right to use the public treets
for the purposes of travel, as well as
all personal and property rights, is
not an absolute and unqualified right.
1t is subject to be limited and con-
trolled by the sovereign authority
the state, whenever necessary to pro-
vide for and promote the safety, peace,
health, morals, and general welfare of
the people. To secure these and kim
bred benefits is the purpose of or
ganized government and to that end
may the power of the state, called its
police power, be used. BY the eXer-
else of that power through legislative
enactments, individuals may be sub
jected to restraints, and the enjoy
ment of personal and property rights
may be limited, or even prevented, if
manifestly necessary 10 develop the
resources of the state, improve its in
dustrial conditions. and secure and adj
vance the safety, comfort and pros
perity of its people And it is funda-
mental law that no constitutional
guaranty is violated by such an ex-
ercise of the police power of the state
when manifestly necessary and tend
ing to secure such general and public
benefits.
Reasonable regula lions for the safe
ty of the people while using the pub
lie streets are clearly within this po-
lice power of the state; and in exercise
of that power the state may regulate
the speed, and enact other reasonable
rules and restrictions as to the use,
of automobiles upon the public streets.
The defendant, however objects
against the validity of the ordinance
in question that it applies to automo-
bies only, and not to all other vehic-
les that use those streets. He con-
tends that it operates against a class
only, and is therefore special legisla-
ton which the Constitution inhibits.
A law is not to be regarded as class
legislation simply because it affects
one class and not another. provided it
affects all members of that same class
alike. and the classification involved
is founded upon reasonable basis.
Such a law is general and not spec
ial. The ordinance in question is gen.
eral and not special, for it applies
equally to all automobiles without dis
elimination and by Whomsoever owned.
The defendant further contends that
this ordinance is unreasona BILE and I'M
necessary for the public safety and
welfare.
was not made under general law,
authorizing municipalities to make
reasonable regulations for the safety
and welfare of the people. but under
special law authorizing the particu
lar ordinance. When the legislature
has constitutional authority to enact
a law to promote the public safety,
and does enact it the eXpediency
of its enactment is not to be passed
upon by the court. In such case the
legislature determines by the enact
ment that the law is reasonable and
necessary.
1t being, therefore, within the po-
lice power of the Legislature to enact
that the particular streets named in
the ordinance in question could be
closed to the use of automobiles, and
it having so enacted, the reasonable
ness and eXpediency of the enactment
cannot be reviewed by the court. The
judgment of the legislature in that re-
spect is conclusive.
In certain sections of our state, such
for example as Mount Desert Island
and the vicinity of Bar Harbor, pub
lie highways have been constructed
along precipitous mountain sides,
through circuitous defiles, over deep
ravines. and on the very edges of
ocean cliffs. The use on such ways of
the powerful, swiftly moving, and
dangerous automobile must necessa-
rily endanger all who travel thereon,
and especially those who ride in car
riages drawn by horses. Presumably
to safeguard the people against such
dangerous conditions the legislature
decided that the ordinance in question
might be made. If the court were au
thorized to review that decision it
would be found, we think, justified in
reason and supported in judicial au-
thority.
It is therefore the opinion of the |
court that the ordinance which the
defendant admittedly violated is con-
stitutional, and accordingly the entry |
must be
Judgment for the State.