PEACE AND ORDER.

120. The preservation of the public peace and order is the primary police function of a municipality.

Whatever contention may have arisen over municipal police power, the authority to preserve the peace and order of the municipality, to prevent the exercise of unlawful violence, and to compel citizens and sojourners to abstain from riot, rout, and unlawful assembly has never been seriously questioned. It is regarded as an inherent municipal power essential to municipal life; and so, whenever the authority has been mooted, it has been uniformly sustained, in some cases even to the extent of the doubtful power of double punishment.30 For even those decisions which hold such double punishment to be violative of constitutional provision are not based upon the want of municipal authority, but upon the positive prohibition against putting a person twice in jeopardy. Municipal regulations preservative of peace and order do not assume to punish crime against the state, but are confined to small offenses and lighter demonstrations of violence and disorder tending to crime. They are essentially means for the prevention of crime as well as the preservation. of peace and order,32 and are therefore favored by the courts

30 City of Carlisle v. Heckinger, 103 Ky. 381, 45 S. W. 358; Kansas City v. Hallett, 59 Mo. App. 160. Cases supra, note 29. But see Ex parte Cross, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 71 S. W. 289.

31 Ex parte Bourgeois, 60 Miss. 663, 45 Am. Rep. 420; State v. Keith, 94 N. C. 933; People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124, 4 L. R. A. 751.

32 Jefferson City v. Courtmire, 9 Mo. 692; Vason v. Augusta, 38 Ga. 542; Town of Washington v. Hammond, 76 N. C. 33; City of New Orleans v. Miller, 7 La. Ann. 651.

A charter right of control over highways, streets, alleys, and public grounds authorizes an ordinance forbidding the making of any public address in a public place without first obtaining permission from the mayor. Love v. Judge, 128 Mich. 545, 87 N. W. 785, 55 L. R. A. 618. See Lincoln v. Boston, 148 Mass. 578, 20 N. E. 329,

as wise provisions for increasing civilization. Such regulations are indispensable to municipalities in those states which, as a measure of public policy, declare public corporations responsible for the public peace and preservation of private property, and make them absolutely liable for damages done by a mob within the corporate boundaries.**

SANITATION.

121. The preservation of the health of the population is uniformly recognized as a most important municipal function; and the power to adopt and enforce sanitary regulations appropriate to this end is inherent in a municipality.

Congested populations tend to breed disease as well as disorder, and since health as well as order is an essential condition of good living, and one of the primary purposes of municipal incorporation, sanitary powers may not only be expressly conferred by the charter, or implied therefrom, but they have been judicially declared to be inherent in a municipality as a necessary attribute thereof, and have been ex

34

3 L. R. A. 257, 12 Am. St. Rep. 601; Brooklyn Park Com'rs v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 234, 6 Am. Rep. 70; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 9 Sup. Ct. 207, 32 L. Ed. 585; City of Wilkes-Barre v. Garebed, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 273; City of Grand Rapids v. Newton, 111 Mich. 48, 69 N. W. 84, 35 L. R. A. 226, 66 Am. St. Rep. 387.

33 DARLINGTON v. NEW YORK, 31 N. Y. 164, 88 Am. Dec. 248; Campbell's Adm'x v. City Council, 53 Ala. 527, 25 Am. Rep. 656. Municipalities are liable for whatever damages may be caused by mobs or riotous assemblages within their respective limits. Street V. New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 577. But this is not so at common law. MAYOR, ETC., OF BALTIMORE v. POULTNEY, 25 Md. 107; Prather v. Lexington, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 559, 56 Am. Dec. 585.

34 Appeal of Borough of Butler (Pa.) 1 Atl. 604; Town of Greensboro v. Ehrenreich, 80 Ala. 579, 2 South. 725, 60 Am. Rep. 130; Gundling v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 340, 52 N. E. 44, 48 L. R. A. 230; Monroe v. Lawrence, 44 Kan. 607, 24 Pac. 1113, 10 L. R. A. 520.

ING.CORP.-23

ercised in ways innumerable. These powers are favored in American courts, and it has been accordingly held that, since a supply of wholesome water is necessary to the comfort and well-being of a city,35 a municipal contract for the boring of an artesian well is an exercise of the police power. And so, likewise, the city may make such regulations as will insure pure milk, or prevent the spread of a deadly disease in a fruit-producing tree. So, also, it may regulate the cultivation of crops, such as rice, within the corporate limits, the cleaning and care of sinks and cesspools, burial of the dead, and the location and operation of slaughter houses.11 It is competent also for a city to establish quarantine regulations, pesthouses, and places of detention, and to exclude,

40

42

36

43

38

35 Kennedy v. Phelps, 10 La. Ann. 227; Town of Suffield v. Hathaway, 44 Conn. 521, 26 Am. Rep. 483; Smith v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 464, 12 S. W. 924, 7 L. R. A. 469.

36 State v. Dupaquier, 46 La. Ann. 577, 15 South. 502, 26 L. R. A. 162, 49 Am. St. Rep. 334; People v. Vandecarr, 81 App. Div. 128, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1108, Id., 175 N. Y. 440, 67 N. E. 913.

37 Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conn. 183, 32 Atl. 348, 29 L. R. A. 251. Cf. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 992, 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253.

38 Town Council of Summerville v. Pressley, 33 S. C. 56, 11 S. E. 545, 8 L. R. A. 854, 26 Am. St. Rep. 659; Green v. Savannah, 6 Ga. 1.

39 Commonwealth v. Cutter, 156 Mass. 52, 29 N. E. 1146; Nicoulin v. Lowery, 49 N. J. Law, 391, 8 Atl. 513.

40 Graves v. Bloomington, 17 Ill. App. 476; CITY OF AUSTIN v. ASSOCIATION, 87 Tex. 330, 28 S. W. 528, 47 Am. St. Rep. 114: COATES v. NEW YORK, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 586; In re Bohen, 115 Cal. 372, 47 Pac. 55, 36 L. R. A. 618.

41 Ex parte Heilbron, 65 Cal. 609, 4 Pac. 648; Beiling v. Evansville, 144 Ind. 644, 42 N. E. 621, 35 L. R. A. 272; Huesing v. Rock Island, 128 Ill. 465, 21 N. E. 558, 15 Am. St. Rep. 129; Inhabitants of Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315, 12 Am. Rep. 694.

42 Markham v. Brown, 37 Ga. 277, 92 Am. Dec. 73; Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523, 11 N. E. 929, 59 Am. Rep. 113; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. Ed. 527.

43 Elliott v. Supervisors, 58 Mich. 452, 25 N. W. 461, 55 Am. Rep. 706; City of Clinton v. Clinton Co., 61 Iowa, 205, 16 N. W. 87.

remove, or detain persons affected with, or who have been exposed to, contagious or infectious diseases. It may regulate also the removal of dead animals and garbage, and compel citizens to prepare the same for removal at minimum expense; 46 and generally may suppress nuisance to the public health.47

Nuisances.

48

45

It is primarily within the power of a municipality to determine and declare what is a nuisance to health; and the courts will not interfere with this discretion except in case of obvious abuse. But whether a given thing is a nuisance is a question of fact, and it is not within the power of a municipal corporation arbitrarily and without support of reason or

49

44 HARRISON v. BALTIMORE, 1 Gill (Md.) 264; Hurst v. Warner, 102 Mich. 238, 60 N. W. 440, 26 L. R. A. 484, 47 Am. St. Rep. 525; City of Chicago v. Peck, 98 Ill. App. 434; Id., 196 Ill. 260, 63 N. E. 711; Frazer v. Chicago, 186 Ill. 480, 57 N. E. 1055, 51 L. R. A. 306, 78 Am. St. Rep. 296; City of Anderson v. O'Conner, 98 Ind. 168.

45 Ex parte Casinello, 62 Cal. 538; In re Vandine, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 187, 17 Am. Dec. 351; Iler v. Ross, 64 Neb. 710, 90 N. W. 869, 57 L. R. A. 895, 97 Am. St. Rep. 676; Alpers v. San Francisco (C. C.) 32 Fed. 503; City of Grand Rapids v. De Vries, 123 Mich. 570, 82 N. W. 269; Smiley v. MacDonald, 42 Neb. 5, 60 N. W. 355, 27 L. R. A. 540, 47 Am. St. Rep. 684; Schoen v. Atlanta, 97 Ga. 697, 25 S. E. 380, 33 L. R. A. 804; Balch v. Utica, 42 App. Div. 562, 59 N. Y. Supp. 513.

46 City of Grand Rapids v. De Vries, supra; Sanitary Reduction Works of San Francisco v. Reduction Co. (C. C.) 94 Fed. 693.

47 Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 184, 22 Am. Dec. 421; Hellen v. Noe, 25 N. C. 493; Ferguson v. Selma, 43 Ala. 398; Harvey v. Dewoody, 18 Ark. 252; Manhattan Mfg. & Fertilizing Co. v. Van Keuren, 23 N. J. Eq. 251; Kennedy v. Phelps, 10 La. Ann. 227; Smith v. Collier, 118 Ga. 306, 45 S. E. 417; Municipality No. 1 v. Wilson, 5 La. Ann. 747; Lake v. Aberdeen, 57 Miss. 260; Vason v. Augusta, 38 Ga. 542; Dunham v. New Britain, 55 Conn. 378, 11 Atl. 354.

48 Laugel v. Bushnell, 197 Ill. 20, 63 N. E. 1086, 58 L. R. A. 266; HART v. MAYOR, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 571, 24 Am. Dec. 165; Harrison v. Baltimore, 1 Gill (Md.) 264.

49 Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 184, 22 Am. Dec. 421.

A cor

fact to declare that which is harmless a nuisance.50 poration cannot make a thing a nuisance by declaring it so.51 "This would place every house, every business, and all the property in the city at the uncontrolled will of the temporary local authorities." 52 The power to regulate does not give power to prohibit; 53 and therefore a city may not absolutely forbid the sale of meat or secondhand clothing, or other lawful business not in itself necessarily a nuisance.54 Ordinarily, the municipality must resort to the usual process of law to abate a health nuisance; 55 but the state may confer upon it the power of summary abatement in case of emergency.5

50 Block v. Jacksonville, 36 Ill. 301; Nazworthy v. Sullivan, 55 Ill. App. 48; Everett v. Council Bluffs, 46 Iowa, 66; Tissot v. Telephone Co., 39 La. Ann. 996, 3 South. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 248.

51 Ward v. Little Rock, 41 Ark. 526, 45 Am. Rep. 46; Harmon v. Chicago, 110 Ill. 400, 51 Am. Rep. 698; State v. Mott, 61 Md. 297, 48 Am. Rep. 105; Ex parte O'Leary, 65 Miss. 80, 3 South. 144, 7 Am. St. Rep. 640; Poyer v. Des Plaines, 123 Ill. 111, 13 N. E. 819, 5 Am. St. Rep. 494. See City of Pittsburg v. W. H. Keech Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 548, where it was held that declaring the thing prohibited a public nuisance would be no ground for denying validity to the penal provision of the ordinance.

An ordinance which declares that a nuisance which is not a nuisance is unreasonable and void. Munsell v. Carthage, 105 Ill. App. 119; City of Carthage v. Munsell, 203 Ill. 474, 67 N. E. 831; City of Carthage v. Duvall, 105 Ill. App. 123. See, also, Griffin v. Gloversville, 67 App. Div. 403, 73 N. Y. Supp. 684.

52 Miller, J., in YATES v. MILWAUKEE, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 497, 19 L. Ed. 984.

53 State v. Taft, 118 N. C. 1190, 23 S. E. 970, 32 L. R. A. 122, 54 Am. St. Rep. 768.

54 Shiras v. Olinger, 50 Iowa, 571, 33 Am. Rep. 138; Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 444; Burditt v. Swenson, 17 Tex. 489, 67 Am. Dec. 665; Town of Greensboro v. Ehrenreich, 80 Ala. 579, 2 South. 725, 60 Am. Rep. 130; Town of Crowley v. West, 52 La. Ann. 526, 27 South. 53, 47 L. R. A. 652, 78 Am. St. Rep. 355; Harrison v. Brooks, 20 Ga. 537.

55 Clark v. Syracuse, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 32; City of Ottumwa v. Chinn, 75 Iowa, 405, 39 N. W. 670; Newark Aqueduct Board v. Passaic, 45 N. J. Eq. 393, 18 Atl. 106.

56 Baumgartner v. Hasty, 100 Ind. 575, 50 Am. Rep. 830; Town of