Electric lighting - Submis- sion to electors 268a. Same subject. 269. Advertising and awarding electric lighting contract. Lowest bid - Highest bid - Electric lighting. 270. 271. Withholding and signing warrants Validating city. § 215. Police power defined. The term "police power" is capable of no exact definition. It is most comprehensive and far-reaching. Its exercise is calculated for the efficient protection, enjoyment of, and control over lives, property, public welfare, peace, health, safety, prosperity and morals, and it may protect the community against the injurious exercise by any citizen or natural or artificial person of his or its own rights. It also extends to matters necessarily connected with and affecting the same or dependent thereupon. There are no definite limitations upon the police power of a State. It is coextensive with the safeguards of public interests and the necessities of the case. It is subject only to rights ceded to the United States by the Constitution. It must be exercised, however, within constitutional limits, and it cannot encroach upon the powers of the Federal Government. The term "po lice power" is applicable not only to the State, but to local governmental subdivisions thereof. All property is subject thereto, public order is maintained by its exercise. The rights of citizens are secured, injury to private rights is prevented as well also as offenses against the State and a conflict of rights. Public intercourse is also promoted. It may be added, however, that there are numerous decisions wherein the police power is resorted to for no other purpose, apparently, than a legal inability to otherwise dispose of the cases, when no other legal or equitable reason for the decision can be colorably assigned. There are, nevertheless, limitations upon the general rules above noted.1 1 It is declared in the United States Supreme Court that there are no definite limitations upon the police power of a State, but it is coextensive with the safeguards of public interests and the necessities of the case. Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 17 Sup. Ct. 864, 12 L. Ed. 260. So, again, the police power of the States is sub ject only to rights ceded to the United States by the Constitution. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 539. See Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465. Mr. Justice Peckham, in considering a telegraph penalty statute, says: "The validity of the statute is based upon the general power of the State to enact such laws in relation to persons and property within its borders as may promote the public health and public morals and the general prosperity and safety of its inhabitants. This power is somewhat generally described as the police power of the State, a detailed definition of which has been said to be difficult, if not impossible, to give. However extensive the power may be, it cannot encroach upon the powers of the Federal Government in regard to rights granted or secured by the Federal Constitution." Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 16 Sup. Ct. 934, 40 L. Ed. 1105, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 858, 861. It has been declared to be the right to regulate the enjoyment of property, to maintain public order, to secure the rights of citizenship, and to prevent injury to private rights, and also that the power cannot be exercised within State limits by Congress. Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 95 Ind. 12, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 56, 48 Am. Rep. 692, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 632, 635, per Elliott, § 216. Police powers-Generally -Electric corporations.Although, as a general rule, there are only constitutional limits to the exercise of the police power, nevertheless, it is also held that the power to determine what rules and regulations are needful to the welfare, peace, health, safety and morals of the J. The case was reversed, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126, 18 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 18, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 49. It is said that this power is so varied and comprehensive that an exact definition, as applicable to all its phases, has so far been found to be impracticable, that this reserved power "embraces the entire system of internal State regulation, having in view not only the preservation of public order and the prevention of offenses against the State, but also the promotion of such intercourse between the inhabitants of the State as is calculated to prevent a conflict of rights and to promote the interests of all. It is a power inherent in every sovereignty and is in its broadest sense nothing more than the power of the State to govern men and things within the limits of its own dominion. It extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and convenience, as well as the property of all persons within the State. It authorizes the legislature to prescribe the mode and manner in which everyone may use his own as not to injure others, and to do whatever is necessary to promote the public welfare not inconsistent with its own organic law." Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250, 55 Am. Rep. 201, 5 N. E. 178, 11 Am. & Eng. Corp Cas. 577, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 1, 5, per Niblack, C. J. Such power is applicable not only to the State, but applies as well to local governmen tal subdivisions of the State. Phil. ipsburg v. Central Pennsylvania Teleph. & S. Co. (Penn. C. P.), 22 Week. N. of Cas. 527, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 105, 109, per Furst, P. J. It is also defined as a power to regu late persons, natural and artificial, and property in accordance with the provisions of the State Constitution in all matters relating to the public health, morals, and safety. Stehmeyer v. Charleston, 53 So. Car. 259, 31 S. E. 322. Again it is declared to be the power of the State to govern men and things within its boundaries; that it is not limited to the protection of health, peace, morals, education, and good order, but comprehends all those general laws or internal regulations necessary to secure peace, good order, the health and comfort of society, and the regulation and protection of all property within the State. State v. Harrington, 68 Vt. 622, 35 Atl. 515, 34 L. R. A. 100. As to definitions, nature, extent, etc., of police power, in general, see the following additional cases: United States: Lake Shore & Michigan So. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 689, 19 Sup. Ct. 565, 43 L. Ed. 858, per Mr. Justice Peckham; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 651 et seq., 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516, per Mr. Justice Harlan; Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, 4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585, per Mr. Justice Miller; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, State belongs to the legislatures of the States and must be exercised within reasonable bounds, and neither State nor Federal courts can prescribe rules and regulations therefor, or determine, without legislation, what classes or class of persons come lawfully therein.2 By virtue of its police power, the State can forbid grade crossings of highways by railways, or of one railway by another at any particular place, or it can permit them at any particular place conditionally or unconditionally. And in the exercise of such power, with the 3 818, 25 L. Ed. 1079, per Mr. Chief Justice Waite; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. (83 U. S.) 36, 62, 21 L. Ed. 394, per Mr. Justice Miller; License Cases, 5 How. (46 U. S.) 504, 583, per Mr. Chief Justice Taney, 589, per Mr. Justice McLean, 12 L. Ed. 257. Alabama: Van Hook v. City of Selma, 70 Ala. 361, 363, 45 Am. Rep. 485. Connecticut: Clark, In re, 65 Conn. 17, 40, 31 Atl. 522, 28 L. R. A. 242, per Hammersley, J. Illinois: Price v. People, 193 Ill. 114, 117, 118, 86 Am. St. Rep. 306, 61 N. E. 844, per Boggs, J. Indiana: Champer v. City of Greencastle, 138 Ind. 339, 351, 46 Am. St. Rep. 390, 35 N. E. 14, 24 L. R. A. 768, per McCabe, C. J. Kansas: Meffert v. State Board of Medical Reg. & Exam., 66 Kan. 710, 72 Pac. 247, per Greene, J. Louisiana: New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Hart, 40 La. Ann. 474, 4 So. 215, 8 Am. St. Rep. 544, per Bermudez, C. J. Maryland: Deems v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 80 Md. 164, 173, 45 Am. St. Rep. 339, 30 Atl. 648, 26 L. R. A. 541, per Robinson, C. J. Massachusetts: Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 53, 84, per Shaw, C. J. Mississippi: Macon, Town of, v. Patty, 57 Miss. 378, 407, 34 Am. Rep. 451, per George, C. J. Missouri: State, Star Pub. Co. v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S. W. 91, 81 Am. St. Rep. 368, 51 L. R. A. 151, per Sherwood, J. New Hampshire: State v. Griffin, 69 N. H. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 139, 39 Atl. 260, 41 L. R. A. 177, per Carpenter, C. J. New York: People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418, 423, 18 N. E. 245, 6 Am. St. Rep. 389, 1 L. R. A. 293, per Andrews, J. North Carolina: State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. 143, 17 Am. St. Rep. 696, per Avery, J. Rhode Island: State v. Dalton, 22 R. I. 77, 80, 84 Am. St. Rep. 818, 48 L. R. A. 775, 46 Atl. 234, per Tillinghast, J.; State v. Fitzpatrick, 16 R. I. 54, 11 Atl. 767, per Durfee, C. J. Washington: Seattle, City of, v. Clark, 28 Wash. 717, 69 Pac. 407, per White, J.; Karasek v. Peier, 22 Wash. 419, 61 Pac. 33, 50 L. R. A. 345, per Anders, J. Wisconsin: Huber v. Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 366, 94 N. W. 354, 62 L. R. A. 589, per Winslow, J.; State v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 537, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934, 90 N. W. 1098, 58 L. R. A. 748, per Dodge, J. 2 State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. (U. S. C. C., Ark., 1899), 96 Fed. 353, s. c. 183 U. S. 185. 3 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Bridgeport Tract. Co., 65 Conn. 410, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 246, 256, 32 Atl. 953, per Baldwin, J. limitation that it does not encroach upon the free exercise of the power vested in Congress by the Constitution, the State may make all necessary provisions with respect to the buildings, poles and wires of telegraph companies in its jurisdiction, which the comfort and convenience of the community may require. Statutes of this character must not extend beyond a just regulation of rights for the public good, and when they unreasonably abridge or burden the privileges which the national authority conserves, they are invalid. "The State, when providing by legislation for the protection of the public health, the public morals or the public safety, is subject to the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States, and may not violate rights secured or guaranteed by that instrument or interfere with the execution of the powers confided to the General Government."5 So in case of the regulation of electric light and telephone wires in the streets, the municipal authorities have complete control thereof in the exercise of the police powers granted to them, for the protection of life and property upon the streets and within their jurisdiction." § 217. Police powers-Electric corporations continued.Again, a city which has full police power to regulate the use of its streets and which, in consenting to the construction of a street railway, has reserved the right to regulate the manner of its operation and amending the ordinance, may subsequently, by ordinance, require that cars shall not be operated, unless in charge of conductors. And all legislative grants to private electric corporations, if not expressly subject to the police 4 Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126, 18 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 18, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 49, 56, per Mr. Justice Field. This case reverses 98 Ind. 12, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 56, 48 Am. Rep. 692, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 632. 5 Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Mayor of N. Y., 38 Fed. 552, 2 Inter. Com. Rep. 533, 3 L. R. A. 449, 6 Ry. & Corp. L. Jour. 105, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 195, 200, per Wallace, J., citing Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 663, 8 Sup. Ct. 273; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 504; Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 462, 464, 6 Sup. Ct. 1114. Nebraska Teleph. Co. v. York Gas & Electric L. Co., 27 Neb. 284. 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 364, 377, 378, 43 N. W. 126. 7 State, Columbia Elec. St. R. L & P. Co. v. Sloan, 48 S. C. 21, 25 S. E. 898. |