The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-12-19

2lbs. t TT s. s.s a!y,lI, ssissa 80
GEoRGEBoYD SONS Ssr.I.
Camden. N. J. SoinSe
mayor and chief Of police the unregu-
lated official discretion Of permitting
or restraining public meetings and
speaking on the streets and its fail |
ure to specify uniform rules OF con-
duct OF action to be observed. 1t will
be observed that before any OF the
things forbidden In the ordinance can
be done, permission must be had
from the mayor and chief Of police
The mayor and chief Of police are in
vested with arbitrary power to grant
or reject the application OF any one
who desires to do any Of the forbidden
acts. The ordinance provides no uni
form rule Of action. to be followed by
all persons who may desire the priv
ilege of speaking or parading on the
streets.
ut is not enough that an ordinance
lis, in some sense or degree, promo
tive of the purpose for which the pow
er to pass 1t was given. 1t must be
also free from the clements which the
courts have declared to be vicious in
legal contemplation. In endeavoring
to promote health, preserve order,
encourage trade, and abate nuisances,
corporate authority must avoid dis
Termination, oppression, excess Of au-
thority and other things which are
| forhiddan IN thnr, An orfltnance RI
be valid must be within the corporate
power, promotive OF the purpose for
(. which the power was delegated, or is
inherently possessed, and free from
the vices of unreasonableness, par
TALLY, arbitrarircss and urconstitri-
tionality."
Town Of Fulton v. Nortemon, so w.
Va. 562.
The latest West Virginia case sup
lporting the same view is Lynch ".
Northyiew, 81 S. E.. 1893 which went
to the supreme court from this county
The second point of the syllabus OF
that case is as follows:
IA municipal ordinance making it
unlawful to dig in the street for the
purpose of laying gas pipes, without
the consent of the council of the town
entered. upon the records OF said
town, is void. for the reason that It
vests the council with arbitrary power
to discriminate between citizens who
may wish to obtain the privilege"
After citing numerous decisions In
support Of the view entertained by it,
1.-THE court, on page SS5 of the same
opinion says:
"From the foregoing authorities the
rule seems that, 10 make valid a city
ordinance placing restrictions upon
lawful conduct or the lawful use Of
Lnroperty. it must specify the rules and
conditions to be observed in such
conduct or-abusiness. and must admit
Eof the exercise 81 The privilege by all
Icitizens alike who will comply with
sncl esSand conditions. II should
not admit Of any opportunity for the
e e.r of ar,hitrarv discrimin alton
by tfe mnnicinal authorities between
citisens similarly situated Sitwit1,-
stanIin, aynress mower nav exist tlle
ordinance must nroyide nnifo,m
, y,I of action: t must p contain perma-
n a,s u laa a nror;sinns onaratinr ean-
n eraI,y ieg sd pi@nart1sllv far Rs
forcement can not he left to the will
of unreeulated discretion of the mn
nicinaI authorities or any officer of
tho cornoration-
Macmillan IN Mimic. Cor. 72s
WICK Wo y. Hopkins. Sheriff. lis
IT AXIS
Sayre Borough v. Phillinsl 14s Pa
4s2. "a All, "a. "a Am 81 Rem
e4e - -
See also. DiIIon Mimic. On. 5es
.Mccrowail v civ of bristol IVA
.f6S n S67 -
Haeerstown n g a r n. On
mn Md I7s. SO All 4e0.
Village Of Little Chute Y. Van
camp. las wis. 526: 12s Am. ST.
Ren l. 400
civ of Richmond v Dndlev 1ao
md 10 % Am ST Ron 18f.S
CITY of Newton v Relrer 143
Mass Kos 10 N n, 1914
Civ Conncil' v West, lao Ala All
1l9s An St Rem az -' : =
Rartlett v. civ Of New Orleans "a
Fed 563
state v Manner. AZ La 4es o so
As0
Eureka civ v Wilson tx Utah
81 40 Am 81 Ron a04
>. -. 11' = r: -. 80. -,