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

~ -
IS No where, Mr.. Pollard, & can yon
find one line providing that this
heinous punishment shall be visited
L " pom law-abiding citizens for occupy
r ing their own houses The penalties
! prescribed In the law are not applt-
y cable to segregation cases Mr.. Poll
lard continued:,, +: ss& sS,$ ;3 3I5!g
We idigress at this point to answ or
y; the contention made by the learned
I, counsel in this case and In the case
4 OF John Coleman V. Town OF Ash
T, land, Va.p that section 4 10 OF the
Charter OF the, City Of Richmond,
i hereinbe fore quoted, which they are
pleased to call the General welfare
4 clause, :" Is of no force and effect i'm
!, less in other sections OF the Chars
& ter, specific powers are granted to- ef-
fectuate the general powers granted
In the General W elfare ella use.'' .! os-
u sibly the contention would have had
some force under section 10 Of the
I, Charter of the City OF Richmond as
lit stood previous to the Act of March
4 g.; 1908, hereinDefore quoted from
i That. section previous to the said act
/ was AN the following languages;
4 Sec. 49, The Council of the City
of Richmond shall have power to
enact suitable. ordinances, to secure
! and promote the general welfare Of
i the Inhabitants OF the city, and shall
also have, subject to- the provisions
herein contained, the control and
management OF the fiscal and munl-
cipal affairs OF the city, and OF all
! property real and personal, BELONG
4 ing to tho said city; and may make
4 such ordinances and adopt such res
4 olutions relating to the same as they
4 =shall deem Il proper and necessary.
4 They shall likewise have the power
4 to make such ordinances, resolutions
and regulations as they may deem
! desirable and suitable to carry out
i the following specific powers, which
are hereby vested in them" (Acts
4 1906, p. 7S.) $$.Sz 4, :, s,,S$s,
The court Will observe that a
change was made in the last SEN
I, tence Whereby 1t was expressly pro-
! vided that the subsequent SPECIFIC
powers" were to be SIN addition" to
J those .granted iii the section AS
|amended, Surely this change is
i strileingly significant and completely
disposes Of the contention made by
tu5 rlSATilSu COuliSSl. -, x. =
/ All Of this argument, Is efHectually
disposed OF by the reply that the leg
! islature had no power to nullify any
Z provision Of the Constitution Of Vir-
glnia, involving the property rights
Of q citizen, Certainly, IL the legisla-
lure had no such power, 1t could not
1 delegate to the Council Of the City
Of Richmond power that 1t did not
itself possess. The following argu-
i ment Is also sinpotent as Affecting the
subject under discussion for the
same reason. He said: .lj
Coming now to the discussion OF
i what powers may be, delegated /" by
8 the State Legislature to q municipal
legislative body, we beg Ito quote
from Mr.. McQuilltn In his work on
Municipal Corporations, where he
I says. Z + Il +. &.
i Ordinances may be passed, first.
by virtue OF express grant of power;
second, under n grant Of power gem
erRl In ita nature; or, third, under
I. Incidental or implied muir ,oipal pow
I ers, Where passed by virtue OF ex-
press power, not inof sent with
a the Federal Constitute, VI laws or
the State Constitution, and such
power Is substantially followed, or
is exercised In a reasonable manner,
the ordinance Will be sustained re-
: CARELESS Of the opinion of the court
t respecting it's reasonableness. III
i brief, IL passed by virtue OF exp 'ess
n TfSSp ~
I aside BY a court for mere unreaso on
Iableness, since questions as to the
)! wisdom and expectancy Of a. regula-
= ton rest alone with the laWmaking
: power. But whether or, not the tnu-
nicinaIity had power to enact an or
\ dinance, or whether the ordinance Is
!, valid and constitutional, Ia for the
, courts. n St E,s A ,S5 N 4, n 81 M a,
here the power to enact the
( particular ordinance IL Is specifically
Z conferred on the municipality, the
4 question whether 1t is reasonable can
no more be raised so as to affect Its
validity than could the same objec-
ation be raised against the statute so
4 as. to affect its validity. The power
: of a court to declare an ordinance
Unreasonable and therefore void Is
S practically, ), restricted to cases in
which the legislature has enacted
nothing on the subject matter of tho
s. ordinance and consequently to cases
In which the ordinance was passed
under the supposed incidental power
& Of the corporation merely. ~ { Q 4 Ne
: Quillin, on Municipal Corporations
section 724, p. 1870 and cases there
cited. See alsoE2 Dillon on Municipal
Corporations, section 600.3 s,
The same author CMr. MoQuillin) }.
in the third volume Of his work, in
D section 895, lays down the follow
& Ing: 4. 81 D, SJ
~ y The exercise Of power under the
s general welfare clause, or the nature
+ Of ordinances that may, be enacted
s and enforced by the municipal cor.
& poration by virtue of "a general
i grant Of 4 power, to maintain the
I, health, peace and good order Of tht,
!, community, to promote Its welfare
:: in trade, industry commerce, man
/ ufactures, education and morals, and
! to carry out the object Of the loGal
corporation, will indicate more clear
~ the scope ard nassare OF. the police
Z II II ~ /,