the acquirement of large tracts or limited areas of land to which is attached some event of historic nature for the purpose of converting them into public grounds.972 These come within the defi Barb. (N. Y.) 282; People v. Adirondack R. Co., 160 N. Y. 225. The acquirement of large tracts of land by the state in the Adirondack mountains for a public reserve or park authorized as being for a public use or purpose. Baird v. Rice, 63 Pa. 489; Seguin Corp. v. Ireland, 58 Tex. 183. See, also, the following cases sustaining the proposition that highways may be laid out for the purpose of accommodating pleasure travel or affording fine views: Higginson v. Inhabitants of Nahant, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 530; In re Mt. Washington Road Co., 35 N. H. 134. But see Bryan v. Town of Branford, 50 Conn. 246, and Town of Woodstock v. Gallup, 28 Vt. 587. 972 United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co., 160 U. S. 668, reversing 67 Fed. 869. "The end to be attained by this proposed use, as provided for by the act of Congress, is legitimate, and lies within the scope of the Constitution. The battle of Gettysburg was one of the great battles of the world. The numbers contained in the opposing armies were great; the sacrifice of life was dreadful; while the bravery, and indeed, heroism, displayed by both the contending forces, rank with the highest exhibition of those qualities ever made by man. The importance of the issue involved in the contest of which this great battle was a part cannot be over estimated. The existence of the government itself, and the perpetuity of our institutions, depended upon the result. Valuable lessons in the art of war can now be learned from an examination of this great battlefield, in connection with the history of the events which there took place. Can it be, that the government is without power to preserve the land, and properly mark out the various sites upon which this struggle took place? Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country. It would be a great object lesson to all who looked upon the land thus cared for, and it would show a proper recognition of the great things that were done there on those momentous days. By this use the government manifests for the benefit of all its citizens the value put upon the services and exertions of the citizen soldiers of that period. Their successful effort to preserve the integrity and solidarity of the great republic of modern times is forcibly impressed upon every one who looks over the field. The value of the sacrifices then freely made is rendered plainer and more durable by the fact that the government of the United States, through its rep nition of "local improvements" and their cost and maintenance is often met by its arbitrary assessment upon benefited, adjoining or abutting property. Local parks, parkways or boulevards, are usually paid for in this way while those including large areas and intended for the use and benefit of the entire community are established and maintained from general revenues.973 The legal ity of assessments based upon one or more of these methods is recognition. Such action on the or unhonored. No narrow view of resentatives in Congress assembled, appreciates and endeavors to perpetuate it by this most suitable part of Congress touches the heart, and comes home to the imagination of every citizen, and greatly tends to enhance his love and respect for those institutions for which these heroic sacrifices were made. The greater the love of the citizen for the institutions of his country, the greater is the dependence properly to be placed upon him for their defense in time of necessity, and it is to such men that the country must look for its safety. The institutions of our country, which were saved at this enormous expenditure of life and property, ought to and will be regarded with proportionate affection. Here upon this battlefield is one of the proofs of that expenditure, and the sacrifices are rendered more obvious and more easily appreciated when such a battlefield is preserved by the government at the public expense. The right to take land for cemeteries for the burial of the deceased soldiers of the country rests on the same footing, and is connected with, and springs from, the same powers of the Constitution. It seems very clear that the government has the right to bury its own soldiers, and to see to it that their the character of this proposed use should be taken. Its national character and importance, we think, are plain. The power to condemn for this purpose need not be plainly and unmistakably deduced from any one of the particularly specified powers. Any number of those powers may be grouped together, and an inference from them all may be drawn that the power claimed has been conferred. It is needless to enlarge upon the subject, and the determination is arrived at without hesitation that the use intended, as set forth in the petition in this proceeding, is of that public nature which comes within the constitutional power of Congress to provide for by the condemnation of land." 58 973 Woodward V. Reynolds, Conn. 486, 19 Atl. 511. Under the authority of the legislature, bonds may be issued by a town for park purposes. People v. Ennis, 188 Ill. 530; In re Adams, 165 Mass. 497; In re De las Casas, 180 Mass. 471, 62 N. E. 738. The report of commissioners appointed under an act of legislature to apportion the expenses of certain metropolitan parks in the different towns in a park district will not be set aside as unjust without evidence to this effect. Foster V. Boston Park Com'rs, 131 Mass. 225. See, also, graves shall not remain unknown § 340, supra. well established, the only restrictions being the levy of the assessment and its collection in a uniform and reasonable method and according to the provisions of law governing the levy and collection of special assessments.974 In common with other local improvements, special authority is usually necessary for the establishment of parks and parkways, 975 although a general grant of power to public corporations may be so broad and comprehensive in its terms as to include this.976 In either case the power as granted is one of a discretionary character in its exercise," and, ordinarily, courts will not interfere with action or inaction in this respect unless unjust or oppressive.978 § 437. Construction of sewers. 977 The police power of the state as exercised by itself or any of its delegated or subordinate agencies includes as one of the objects of its legitimate exercise the preservation of the health of the people. Under congested municipal conditions this is especially true. The establishment and maintenance of a sewerage system ample in size and perfect in its workings has been considered both essential and necessary by municipal authorities to the preservation of the public health in both ancient and modern times.979 974 Matthews v. Kimball, 70 Ark. 451, 66 S. W. 651, 69 S. W. 547. One who petitions for the organization of a park improvement district is estopped thereafter from questioning the validity of its organization or of a resulting assessment. Merrick v. Inhabitants of Amherst, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 500; In re Kingman, 153 Mass. 566, 12 L. R. A. 417; In re Livingston, 51 Hun, 640, 4 N. Y. Supp. 56; City of Springfield v. Gay, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 612. See §§ 337 et seq., supra. 975 West Chicago Park Com'rs v. McMullen, 134 Ill. 170, 25 N. E. 676, 10 L. R. A. 215. Chapter 105, § 50, of Ill. Rev. St. 1889, is not local or special legislation although it applies to but one city in the state. People v. Ennis, 188 Ill. 530; City of St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 41 S. W. 1094, 46 S. W. 976, 42 L. R. A. 686; Baker v. Vander. burg, 99 Mo. 378; Holtz v. Diehl, 26 Misc. 224, 56 N. Y. Supp. 841. Under a grant of the power to control parks, park commissioners may construct a speed way. 976 Doe d Stump v. Town of Attica, 7 Ind. 641; Price v. Inhabitants of Breckenridge, 77 Mo. 447; Carter v. City of Portland, 4 Or. 340. 977 Reid v. Board of Education of Edina, 73 Mo. 295. 978 In re Kingman, 153 Mass. 566, 12 L. R. A. 417; In re Adams, 165 Mass. 497. 979 Park Ecclesiastical Soc. V. City of Hartford, 47 Conn. 89; Rich v. City of Chicago, 152 Ill. 18; O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley Drain In Rome, that wonderfully constructed and managed city in its public works and appointments of former centuries, is found even today the remains of a comprehensive and effective sewerage system, this being neccessary, not only then, but under all similar conditions, for carrying off the accumulating refuse and filth of a city and the drainage of surplus waters. § 438. The authority. A sewerage system is a "local improvement" within the meaning of that term as ordinarily employed in public statutes and the rule holds in respect to this particular one that before the power for its construction can be legally exercised, it must have been age Co., 32 Ind. 169; In re Kingman, 153 Mass. 566, 27 N. E. 778, 12 L. R. A. 417. "It is contended that a statute for providing a system for the disposal of sewage * cannot be considered as providing for an object of general public utility but that the benefits to be derived from it are essential ly local in their operation and do not in any sense include the whole people; and therefore that the public money of the commonwealt ought not to be expended for it. Assuming that the respondents may so far represent the general public as to be entitled to raise this question, it is plain that the objection can hardly be considered as of great weight. ** It (the statute) has for its purpose to promote the public health, to avert disease and to prevent nuisances. The territory to be benefited, according to the report of the state board of health to which we are referred includes an area of one hundred and thirty square miles and contains one-sixth of the population of the state. The legisla ture has declared that a system of sewerage to accommodate this ter * ritory and this portion of the people of the state is an object of public utility such as warrants the expenditure or the advancement for the time being of money from the treasury of the commonwealth. It is impossible for us to say to the contrary. The argument is made to us that if such an expenditure of public money is warranted, the legislature might authorize an appropriation for the benefit of a single town and construct and maintain forever a local improvement for such town. But in determining the power of the legislature in a case like this, little assistance is obtained by imagining extreme instances of possible abuse of the power." Carr v. Dooley, 122 Mass. 255; City of Detroit v. Corey, 9 Mich. 165. The power of a city to construct sewers is not given for governmental purposes and their construction and maintenance is not a public municipal duty. City of St. Louis v. Oeters, 36 Mo. 456; Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 116; In re Fowler, 53 N. Y. 60; City of Philadelphia v. Tryon, 35 Pa. 401; Wood v. McGrath, 150 Pa. 451, 16 L. R. A. 715. See, 980 specially granted by the sovereign." All public corporations are mere agents of the state, the sovereign or central power, whatever its form. As such, they possess few, what might be termed, self-contained powers. The legislative authority may be comprehensive and general in its terms in the original grant of authority to a municipal corporation,981 or, again, it may be special and particular applying to a specific case for a particular occasion.982 The legislation, whether general or special, must be constitutional and, in other respects, legal, and these considerations may raiso questions of local or special legislation in violation of constitutional provisions983 or legislation not passing successfully the oralso, Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 39; Dietz v. City of Neenah, 91 461, 46 Am. Rep. 637. Wis. 422, 64 N. W. 299, 65 N. W. 500. 982 Keese v. City of Denver, 10 Colo. 112, 15 Pac. 825. Generally charter provisions may be repealed by subsequent legislation upon the same subject. Bradley v. McAtee, 70 Ky. (7 Bush) 667; Butler v. City of Worcester, 112 Mass. 541; Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. v. City of Worcester, 116 Mass. 458; Morse v. City of Worcester, 139 Mass. 389; In re Leake & Watts Orphan Home, 92 N. Y. 116. The authority for "regulating, grading and otherwise improving" a certain avenue carries with it the right to construct a sewer in it. 980 City of Atchison v. Price, 45 Kan. 296, 25 Pac. 605; Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. Brunswick Village Corp., 92 Me. 493; Ostrander v. City of Lansing, 111 Mich. 693; City of St. Louis v. Oeters, 36 Mo. 456; Donahoe v. Kansas City, 136 Mo. 657; Stoudinger V. City of Newark, 28 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 187; State v. City Council of Charleston, 12 Rich. Law (S. C.) 705. 981 City of Denver v. Capelli, 4 Colo. 25; Cone v. City of Hartford, 28 Conn. 363; Shreve v. Town of Cicero, 129 Ill. 226; Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 162 111. 505; Welch v. Town of Roanoke, 157 Ind. 398, 61 N. E. 791; City of Elkhart v. Wickwire, 121 Ind. 331; Maddux v. City of Newport, 12 Ky. L. R. 657, 14 S. W. 957: Kennedy v. Borough of Belmar, 61 N. J. Law, 20, 38 Atl. 756; Bacon v. Nanny, 55 Hun, 606, 7 N. Y. Supp. 804; Kelsey v. King, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 410; Hartwell v. Railroad Co., 40 Ohio St. 155; Strowbridge v. City of Portland, 8 Or. 67; Beers v. Dalles City, 16 Or. 334, 18 Pac. 835; Horton v. City of Nashville, 72 Tenn. (4 Lea) 983 Ward v. Robert J. Boyd Pav. & Con. Co., 79 Fed. 390, holding Mo. St. of Mch. 18th, 1893, relative to sewers and drains for classified cities in the state unconstitutional as violating Sec. 7, Art. 9 of the Mo. Const. which provides for the division of the towns and cities of the state into four classes and declares that the powers of each class shall be defined by general laws. But see Owen v. Baer, 154 Mo. 434, and cases cited as holding that such law is not an unauthorized delegation of the law-making power but is unconstitutional as violating |