The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1913-06-20

stated, or to gather in, loiter in or
frequent such place.
1t is evident that the restrictions
in this section of the ordinance are
more severe than the restrictions
of the general law, in that no person
under the age of twenty-one years
may frequent pool room without
violation of the ordinance, whereas
under the law such persons are per-
mitted to frequent such places I'M
less they are pupils of some school,
college or university.
A clear distinction is apparent and
| a certain class of persons are re-
stricted by the section of the ord1-
nance in question VINO are not re-
stricted by the general law.
/ The authorities in this state are
somewhat confusing as applied to
the question of the controlling effect
of local ordinances or general law,
and varying rules seem to have been
construed as such rules have been
made applicable to varying questions
at issue.
However, we may assume that
Mr.. Justice Brown in st. Paul VS..
Briggs 85 Mimi. 900, has given ex-
preston to the general rule in which
it seems to be held that the munich
pal authority must be confined with
in the scope of the law relating to
the subject and that if city or
ganiZatiOn under the constitutional
amendment empowering cities to
form their own charters may assume
and cloth itself with power to de,
fine crimes and misdemeanors it may
extend and enlarge the criminal laws
of the state to suit the notions Of
!; its council. There must, in the ma
ture of things, be some limitation up
) on such authority; if not, confusion
may result.
THE exercise by municipal cor.
porations of the delegated power to
enact ordinances must therefore be
confined within the general princi
pies of the law applicable to the sub
ject of such ordinances; and any
other rule would confer upon NUM-
cipal authorities greater power than
was intended they should possess.
Where Ordinance Is Invalid.
j ''It is held therefore that the ordi
:, nance in question is not unconstitu
e tional, but that it is invalid in so fal
as it attempts to restrict minor.
over the age of eighteen years anC
I under the age of twenty-one years
q who are not pupils in any school
{ college or university, from playin,
O pool, billiards or bowling, or from
s. frequenting pool and billiard room
o or bowling alleys, or public place
t bowling are played, and in so far a
e it prohibits persons in charge of O
e keeping public pool, billiard room
or public bowling alleys, or publ
4 places of business wherein pool o
$ billiards or bowling are played, t
y permit minors over the age of eight
re cen years and under the age of tweI
y ty-one years who are not pupils G
any school, college or university, t
e play any of the games hereinbefor
,e set forth, or to gather in, loiter i
ID or frequent such place, for the re;
IS son that such provision of said ord
1T nance is in conflict with the pr,
ot visions of Chapter 572, Laws of 191:
1t and provides more burdensome r,
e. strictlons upon "uch persons tina
n Inr Id h. IL,
IS I'm passing, we may add that tn
in provisions of section eight, of sal
iy ordinance providing for wkritten col
Ii sent of parents or guardians to pc
NIT minors of the age of sixtee
years or more to frequent pool an
to billiard rooms or bowling alleys an
I'D play therein, is held invalid for til
in reason that such provision is in d
in rect conflict with the general lay
re but nevertheless does not render t.
ng ordinance in question unconstitution
n for the reason that the provis 81
he of said section of the ordinance =.
er not mandatory but merely negatly
ed THE ordinance in question is he
er to be constitutional and exceptir
MS such parts expressly held inval
he herein, is of full force and effect.
Wherefore it is found that Il
he defendants are not guilty of publ
lat offense and are hence discharge
ed and the complaint herein is d
ect missed"
no CITY ADVISOR DISSENTs.
zee City Attorney Arthur Schaub do
de not agree with Judge Comstock
in his decision in the pool hall cas-
de- Mr.. Schaub said today:
of Il am convinced that the pool h;
it'll ordinance is absolutely valid. T.
state law is also in force in our eli
in but | claim that we have the rig
lot to make more stringent regulatio
,se if they are required by local CON
of tions. Our state supreme court us
the following language in the ca
,as of Evans against the city of Re
.oe wood Falls
lio 1.-The statute fixes the minimu
g; degree of regulation which may
Inc imposed in any locality. Mo
on stringent rules may, however.
adopted under the legislative
-, thority contained in municipal CHI;
49, tiers, and so long as they embo
Ia