in considerable detail in discussing the liability of the city for the torts of its officials, and so need only mention here a few of the chief matters which are generally recognized as being primarily of state concern. Chief among such may be mentioned: the preservation of the peace and the enforcement of the criminal law through the police department (17); the protection of the public from disease through the health department; the state school system; the assessment and collection of taxes; and, according to some, the protection of the community from fire through the fire department. Examples of matters primarily of local concern are: sewer systems, park systems, and water, gas, and electric lighting plants, where owned and operated by the city. The leading cases discussing and deciding these questions will be set forth in detail in a later chapter dealing with the liability of public corporations in tort (Chapter III, below).

§ 24. Control of private municipal property: Trust property. According to some of the cases, a public corporation may be the owner of property which falls within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the states to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," which means, among other things, that private property may not be confiscated. All the authorities agree in holding that property vested in a public corporation in trust, to be devoted to charitable purposes of any kind, cannot be diverted to other purposes by legislative enactment (18). Such property, how

(17) Horton v. Newport, 27 R. I. 283.

Cooley's finds expression in the recent cases of Van Cleve v. Passaic Valley Commissioners (15) and Newport v. Horton (16).

§ 23. Legislative control of local matters of state importance. A full discussion of this question of the right to local self-government requires us to note the distinction which exists between matters of state concern and those of purely local importance. As pointed out in our first chapter (§ 9, above), the city in our system is both an organ for the satisfaction of local needs and an agent aiding in the administration of the affairs of the central state government. Even adopting Cooley's view that there is an inherent right to local self-government, i. e., a constitutional right to have local officials locally elected or appointed, it seems clear that in so far as the state has used the municipality in administering the state's affairs, it may deprive the city of the right to continue to do so, and vest those powers in centrally appointed officers unless some express constitutional provision forbids. That this is the law Judge Cooley recognized himself in the Detroit Park cases cited and discussed above. As we shall see, there are express constitutional provisions which prevent even this to some extent in some states, but of those we shall treat later (§§ 33-37, below). Confining ourselves to the general question at the present moment, it becomes of importance to determine what are matters of purely local importance and what of state concern. We shall have occasion to work the matter out

(15) 71 N. J. L. 183.

in considerable detail in discussing the liability of the city for the torts of its officials, and so need only mention here a few of the chief matters which are generally recognized as being primarily of state concern. Chief among such may be mentioned: the preservation of the peace and the enforcement of the criminal law through the police department (17); the protection of the public from disease through the health department; the state school system; the assessment and collection of taxes; and, according to some, the protection of the community from fire through the fire department. Examples of matters primarily of local concern are: sewer systems, park systems, and water, gas, and electric lighting plants, where owned and operated by the city. The leading cases discussing and deciding these questions will be set forth in detail in a later chapter dealing with the liability of public corporations in tort (Chapter III, below).

§ 24. Control of private municipal property: Trust property. According to some of the cases, a public corporation may be the owner of property which falls within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the states to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," which means, among other things, that private property may not be confiscated. All the authorities agree in holding that property vested in a public corporation in trust, to be devoted to charitable purposes of any kind, cannot be diverted to other purposes by legislative enactment (18). Such property, how

(17) Horton v. Newport, 27 R. I. 283.

Cooley's finds expression in the recent cases of Van Cleve v. Passaic Valley Commissioners (15) and Newport v. Horton (16).

§ 23. Legislative control of local matters of state importance. A full discussion of this question of the right to local self-government requires us to note the distinction which exists between matters of state concern and those of purely local importance. As pointed out in our first chapter (§ 9, above), the city in our system is both an organ for the satisfaction of local needs and an agent aiding in the administration of the affairs of the central state government. Even adopting Cooley's view that there is an inherent right to local self-government, i. e., a constitutional right to have local officials locally elected or appointed, it seems clear that in so far as the state has used the municipality in administering the state's affairs, it may deprive the city of the right to continue to do so, and vest those powers in centrally appointed officers unless some express constitutional provision forbids. That this is the law Judge Cooley recognized himself in the Detroit Park cases cited and discussed above. As we shall see, there are express constitutional provisions which prevent even this to some extent in some states, but of those we shall treat later (§§ 33-37, below). Confining ourselves to the general question at the present moment, it becomes of importance to determine what are matters of purely local importance and what of state concern. We shall have occasion to work the matter out

(15) 71 N. J. L. 183.

in considerable detail in discussing the liability of the city for the torts of its officials, and so need only mention here a few of the chief matters which are generally recognized as being primarily of state concern. Chief among such may be mentioned: the preservation of the peace and the enforcement of the criminal law through the police department (17); the protection of the public from disease through the health department; the state school system; the assessment and collection of taxes; and, according to some, the protection of the community from fire through the fire department. Examples of matters primarily of local concern are: sewer systems, park systems, and water, gas, and electric lighting plants, where owned and operated by the city. The leading cases discussing and deciding these questions will be set forth in detail in a later chapter dealing with the liability of public corporations in tort (Chapter III, below).

§ 24. Control of private municipal property: Trust property. According to some of the cases, a public corporation may be the owner of property which falls within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the states to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," which means, among other things, that private property may not be confiscated. All the authorities agree in holding that property vested in a public corporation in trust, to be devoted to charitable purposes of any kind, cannot be diverted to other purposes by legislative enactment (18). Such property, how

(17) Horton v. Newport, 27 R. I. 283.