The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1909-10-22

newspapers in the middle west are
commenting at some length on a de-
cision affecting the status of auto
mobiles Bar Harbor has won a fight
that means the exclusion of the autos
from the little subdivision within it's
borders known as Eden. The Chicago
+ Post refers to a test case i'll which
the court held that the village was
well within its rights, particularly as
the Maine legislature had passed a
special act permitting the towns and
cities to regulate automobiles even
to the point of barring them from
certain streets. 1t is a case that is
likely to attract considerable atten-
ton, for the court dealt with pretty
nearly all of the objections that the
mind of an automobile lawyer could
devise
| The village ordinance was challenged
as violation of the fourteenth
amendment, which declares that no
state shall 'deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection OF
the laws" According to the automo-
bile people the ordinance likewise vio-
lated the guaranty of the Maine con-
stitution that no law should be passed
i violating the equal right "of enjoying
and defending life and property, ac-
Iquiring, possessing and protecting
property and of pursuing and obtain
ing safety and happiness"
| DIT 70 al I
that the right to use the public streets
for a certain sort OF travel was not
an absolute and unqualified right 1t
! is subject to the control of the state
whenever necessary to provide for
and promote the safety, peace, health,
morals and general welfare of the
people"
To the contention that the ordi-
nance was special legislation, because
it applied to automobiles only and not
to all other vehicles, the court said !:
A law is not to be regarded as
class legislation simply because it
1 affects one class and not another,
provided it affects all members
of that class alike, and the clas-
sification involved is founded upon
reasonable basis. Such law
is general and not special, for it
applies equally to all automobiles
without discrimination and by
whomsoever owned.
! The court did not feel compelled to
90 behind the state law to determine
the reasonableness of the ordinance:
When the legislature has con-
stitutional 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 enactment that the law is
reasonable and necessary. 1t be-
ing, therefore, within the police
power of the legislature to enact
that the particular streets named
i'll the ordinances in question
could be closed to the use of
automobiles, and it having SO en-
acted, the rreasonableness. and eX7:!:
pediency of the enactment can
not be reviewed by the court
The Judgment of the legislature
in that respect is conclusive.
/ The mere affirmation of the consti-
nationality of such an ordinance does
not include a judgment on it's feast
bility. 1t is inconceivable that a big
city would ever pass such legisla
ton on any very drastic scale, though
it might decide to exclude automobiles
from certain streets just as it bars
funeral professions and heavy drays
from the boulevards. It's real signif
canoe will be for those suburban towns
who see a new weapon for their war
with the auto speeder. Such a de-
cision ought to have a salutary effect
on the driver who speeds his machine
beyond all reason. If he can be curb
ed, villages will not seek to bar the
autoist from their midst