§ 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. 9 power of the municipality, are impliedly so.8 So electric wires. when charged are dangerous to life and property, and their use is, therefore, subject to police regulations. Again, a telegraph company is subject to such reasonable police regulations. as to transmission of messages within the State, as said State may impose, even though said company is a foreign corporation.10 Such police power also extends to the regulation of the use of dangerous machinery, with a view to protecting not only others, but those who are employed to use it, and this rule includes an act to compel street railways to protect motoneers against inclement weather.11 And the authority conferred by charter upon a city to make police regulations authorizes the change of plan of a water-works and electric light plant, adopted before an election to determine whether such plant should be built, as the vote would be advisory only.12 So the power to change curb lines to compel the removal of poles to conform thereto, is included within the police power of a municipal corporation, especially so, where an electric light company occupies the streets, and in the absence of fraud or corruption, courts may not interfere, as such matter rests in the discretion of the traveling public.13 § 217a. Police powers-Electric corporations continued.— Although a telephone company, having a statutory right to erect its poles on highways and city streets, is subject to reasonable police regulations in the exercise of its rights,14 still a city's & Monongahela City v. Monongahela Elec. L. Co. (Penn. C. P.), 12 Penn. Co. Ct. Rep. 529, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 53. State, Laclede Gas L. Co. v. St. Louis, 130 Mo. 10, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 79, 31 S. W. 594, per Macfarlane, J. This case was appealed. 170 U. S. 78, 18 Sup. Ct. 505. And as to the points involved in said cases, see State Nat. Subway Co. v. St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. R. A. 113. As to police regulations of electric companies, see note, 31 L. R. A. 798; City of Allentown v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 148 Penn. St. 117, 33 Am. St. Rep. 820, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 90, 23 Atl. 1070. 10 Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Mississippi R. Commn., 74 Miss. 80, 21 So. 15. 11 State v. Hoskins, 58 Minn. 35, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 614, per Gilfillan, C. J. 12 Elmwood V. Reedsburgh, 91 Wis. 131, 64 N. W. 885. 13 Monongahela City v. Monongahela Elec. L. Co. (C. P. Penn.), 12 Penn. Co. Ct. Rep. 529, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 53. 14 Rochester, City of, charter and its general police power constitute limitations upon its authority to impose conditions upon a telephone company having the right under the State statutes to use the city streets for its lines.15 So it is declared in a Minnesota case that upon construing the charter of the municipality and the statutes in the light of the rules of law the city had authority to exercise its police power to protect the public from unnecessary obstructions, inconvenience, and danger, and to determine in what manner a telephone company could erect its poles so as to accomplish such a result; but that its authority to impose other conditions was limited, as that power rested in the legislature.16 Again, street rights acquired by a telephone company under an ordinance must be held subject to the provisions under which they were granted and also subject to the reasonable regulations of the municipality by virtue of its police power.17 In Kansas the general police powers of cities of the first class may be exercised, within their corporate limits, over telegraph and telephone corporations located therein, together with such regulations as are by statute conferred upon such cities.18 It is also a proper exercise of the police power delegated to municipalities to regulate and control the use of their streets by electric light corporations.19 So an ordinance is a police regulation which requires that a vigilant watch for pedestrians shall be kept by motormen on street railway cars." And an ordinance regulating the running of electric wires in a township and imposing a penalty for the violation of an Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. City of Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23, 86 N. W. 657, 7 Am. Elec. Cas. 109. 15 Wisconsin Teleph. Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 126 Wis. 1, 104 N. W. 1009, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 581. See State, Garner v. Missouri & K. Teleph. Co., 189 Mo. 83, 88 S. W. 41. 16 State, Wisconsin Teleph. Co. v. City of Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23, 86 N. W. 657, 7 Am. Elec. Cas. 109, per Burdeen, J., quoted from in same case, 115 Wis. 505, 90 N. W. 441, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 155, per Cassody, C. J. 17 Morristown, City of, v. East Tennessee Teleph. Co., 115 Fed. 304, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 3, citing Baltimore, City of, v. Baltimore Trust & Guarantee Co., 166 U. S. 673, 41 L. Ed. 1160, 17 Sup. Ct. 696. 18 Wichita, City of, v. Missouri & K. Teleph. Co., 70 Kan. 441, 78 Pac. 886. 19 Commonwealth Electric Co. v. Rose, 214 Ill. 545, 73 N. E. 780, affg. 114 Ill. App. 181. 20 Riska v. Union Depot R. Co., 180 Mo. 168, 79 S. W. 445. |