Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1915-03-27

and maintained against such leglsla-
ton. Getting Casey But, in many
cases in this court, the right OF free
dom OF contract have been applied
be unlimited In its nature, and
when the right to contract or car
ry on business conflicts with laws de-
claring the public policy OF the State,
enacted for the protection Of the
public health, safety or welfare, the
same may DO valid. Notwithstanding
they have the effect to curtail or
limit the freedom of contract. 1t
would extend this opinion beyond
reasonable limits to make reference
to all the cases In this court In which
qualifications of the right Of free
dom Of contract have been applied
and enforced. };@,5
1T is, then, the established doc
trine Of this court that the liberty Of
contract Is not universal, and Is
subject to restrictions passed .by the
legislative branch Of the government
in the exercise Of It's power to pro-
tect the safety, health and welfare
Of the people"
"The legislature, being familiar
with local conditions, is, primarily,
the Judge Of the necessity Of such
enactments. The mere fact that q
court may differ with the legislature
in It's views Of public policy, or that
Judges may hold views inconsistent
with the propriety Of the legislation
in question, affords no ground for ju-
dicial interference, unless the act in
question is Enthusiastically and palpa-
bly, In excess of legislative, power"
The latest case ON this subject IN
the Supreme Court Of the United
States, which we beg to cite. Is. the
case Of Mo. p. Ry. CO. ". City OF
Omaha (dccided November 80, 1910
United States Supreme Court Ad-
vance Sheets, 1914, PIP. 1884. where
Mr.. Justice Day, delivering the
opinion Of the court, said:
This is done In the exercise of the
police power and the means to be
employed to promote the public
safety are primarily, in the judy
ment Of the legislative branch Of the
government, to whose authority such
matters are committed and so long
as the means have substantial re-
lation to the purpose to be accom-
plished, and there is no arbitrary in
reference with private rights, the
courts cannot interfere with the
exercise Of the power by enjoining
regulations made in the interest Of
public safety which the legislature
has duly enacted" Getting many
cases.) .
.
"The Constitution Of the United
States requiring that no State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process Of law,
has not undertaken to equalize all
the inequalities which may result
from the exercise of recognized State
authority. In the exercise Of the po-
lice power, 1t may Happen. as 1t often
does. that Inequality reslts which
the law Is powerless to redress II
is only in those clear and unmistak-
able cnses OF abuse Of legislative au-
thority that the court is authorized,
under section Of the Federal Consti-
tuition. to enjoin tho exercise Of leg
islative power"
Coming now to review Of some
of the Virginia cases in addition to
those hereinbefore cited, we beg to
say that while some members of the
bar have thought that our State
courts were extremely conservative
r. ossi1%in,g tha leg os the Supreme
g 6 tho extent Of the police power et
the Virginia cases arc ample, 4! we
submit, to justify tho affirmation oi
tho Judgment Of the Hastings Court
OF the City of Richmond here COM
planned Of ,:>. 4
In II r. + }{Rt
81 Va: (26 Gratt.) SO. 81, the con-
tention was that an ordinance Of the
city, prohibiting the Richmond. Fred
ericksburg and Potomac Railroad
Company from drawing or propelling
by steam: Its cars 4 on Broad street,
was void, because the legislative
grant to this railroad company had
authorized It to build Its road within
the corporate limits Of tho city, the
location to be approved by the coun-
had been given by resolution adopt
ed, whereby the common council did
approve the proposed location OF
termination Of the same, as prescrih-
ed in the foregoing resolution"
which location was on Broad street.
upon WHICH IL. WIS dltSFWdTuS pro-
hibited from going, But the court in
answer to the contention of the rail-
road company used this pertinent
languages:
ITO give to the charter such an
Interpretation would be to hold not
only that the legislature had DELHI
erately violated the chartered rights
OF the principal and capital city Of
the Commonwealth, by depriving it
of the power to protect the public
safety and promote the public well
fare, but that the legislature had
tied its own hands and placed this
corporation above and beyond the
reach of law" >s
: On an appeal to the Supreme
Court OF the United States, this
was affirmed, Chief Justice
Waite delivering the opinion. THIS
learned judge said:
"The right is granted the COM
pany to construct a railroad from.
some point within the corporation of
Richmond to be approved by the
common council No definite point is
fixed by the charter. This is left to
the discretion OF the company, sub
ject only to the approval Of the city.
The power to approve certainly Inn
plies the power to reject one location