Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

to pass a bill returned unapproved. 212 A larger number of votes is usually necessary to pass a bill or ordinance over an executive's veto, than required for the passage of ordinary legislation.213

§ 528. Ordinances; publication.

It is a just and salutary principle which requires the legislative action of a municipal body to be promulgated or published in some manner before it can become effective.214 This action results, as has been seen, in the passage of a law, local in its operation it is true, but having within the jurisdiction of the enacting body all the force and effect of law. The principle not only requires the publication of an ordinance or resolution, but in addition, its publication in that manner which shall best bring it to the attention of those whose actions and property it was designed to control or affect. The law does not tolerate at this time the practice of the old Roman Emperor who posted his proclamations and ediets, printed in fine characters, so far above the heads of

212 Atlanta R. & P. Co. v. Atlanta Rapid Transit Co., 113 Ga. 481, 39 S. E. 12; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. V. Voelker, 129 III. 540, 22 N. E. 20; Stutsman v. McVicar, 111 Iowa, 40, 82 N. W. 460; Caswell v. Recorder of Bay City, 99 Mich. 417, 58 N. W. 331; State v. District Ct., 41 Minn. 518; Oakley v. Atlantic City, 63 N. J. Law, 127. But see Wilson v. Inhabitants of Trenton, 56 N. J. Law, 469, 29 Atl. 183.

213 Heins v. Lincoln, 102 Iowa, 69; State v. Darrow, 65 Minn. 419, 67 N. W. 1012; Stanton v. City of Hoboken, 52 N. J. Law, 88, 18 Atl. 685; Peck v. City of Rochester, 3 N. Y. Supp. 872; People v. Board of Councilmen of Buffalo, 20 N. Y. Supp. 51; Gleason v. Peerless Mfg. Co., 1 App. Div. 257, 37 N. Y. Supp. 267.

214 People v. City & County Sup'rs of San Francisco, 27 Cal. 655. It is not necessary that provisions of the law referred to in an ordinance should be published with it. City &

County of San Francisco v. Buck-man, 111 Cal. 25, 43 Pac. 396; Conboy v. Iowa City, 2 Iowa, 90; Com. v. McCafferty, 145 Mass. 384, 14 N. E. 451. A provision for publication directory only.

McKusick v. City of Stillwater, 44 Minn. 372, 46 N. W. 769. The fact that the contract for printing between the official newspaper and the city is different will not render ordinances and notices, duly published as required, invalid. Chamberlain v. City of Hoboken, 38 N.. J. Law, 110. The proceedings of a city council cannot be published in any other manner than that directed by the legislature. In re Astor, 50 N. Y. 363; In re Anderson, 60 N. Y. 457; Olds v. Erie City, 79 Pa. 380; Klais v. Pulford, 36 Wis. 587; Herman v. City of Oconto, 100 Wis. 391, 76 N. W. 364. The provision for the publication of an or dinance at a stated time is mandatory.

the people that it was impossible for them to gain a knowledge of their contents and then punished them for infractions of the laws thus published.

The publication or promulgation of the ordinance may be required by charter or statutory provisions and to be made by some designated officer charged with this particular duty,215 and a failure to exercise the authority in the manner thus prescribed is fatal.

The time of publication again may be material and important considered from the standpoint of legislative action. Some charter provisions require the publication or posting of the ordinance or resolution before final action is taken by the municipal legislative body complying with the principle that notice, either actual or constructive, should be given to all who are interested, before the final adoption of legislative action which affects and praetically adjudicates property rights,216 while other charters, and the greater number, provide that the publication or posting shall take place only after the passage of the ordinance or resolution and its approval by the mayor or presiding officer. 217

215 Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136; Higley v. Bunce, 10 Conn. 436; Barnett v. Town of Newark, 28 I11. 62; Tisdale v. Town of Minonk, 46 Ill. 9; Conboy v. Iowa City, 2 Iowa, 90; City of Pittsburg v. Reynolds, 48 Kan. 360.

216 City & County of San Francisco v. Buckman, 111 Cal. 25, 43 Pac. 396; Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208; Ex parte Haskell, 112 Cal. 412, 32 L. R. A. 527; Dumars v. City of Denver, 16 Colo. App. 375, 65 Pac. 580; City of Leavenworth v. Douglass, 3 Kan. App. 67; City of Baltimore v. Little Sisters of the Poor, 56 Md. 400; Doty v. Lyman, 166 Mass. 318; Heman Const. Co. v. Loevy, 64 Mo. App. 430; Barr v. City of New Brunswick, 58 N. J. Law, 255, 33 Atl. 477; City of Cape May v. Cape May, D. B. & S. P. Co., 60 N. J. Law, 224, 37 Atl. 892, 39 L. R. A. 609; Anderson v. City

Council of Camden, 58 N. J. Law, 515; City of Schenectady v. Furman, 61 Hun, 171, 15 N. Y. Supp. 724; In re Bassford, 50 N. Y. 509; In re Douglass, 46 N. Y. 42; In re Smith, 52 N. Y. 527; Bank of Columbia v. City of Portland, 41 Or. 1, 67 Pac. 1112. Under the city charter of Portland it is only necessary to publish a notice that the council may improve a particular part of a designated street and in the manner specified. State V. Fountain, 14 Wash. 236; Herman v. City of Oconto, 100 Wis. 391, 76 N. W. 364; Linden Land Co. v. Milwaukee Elec. R. & Light Co., 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851; Quint v. City of Merrill, 105 Wis. 406.

217 People v. City & County Sup'rs of San Francisco, 27 Cal. 655; Schweitzer v. City of Liberty, 82 Mo. 309; In re Levy, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 501.

[graphic]

§ 529. Manner of publication; language and medium.

The manner of publication, as already suggested, is important in considering the reason for publication. English is the official and national language in this country and it is scarcely necessary to add that an ordinance or resolution written or published in a language other than English will not be binding.218 Some cases: go to the extent of holding that municipal laws must be not only written and printed in English but also in a newspaper or newspapers printed and published in the same language.219 Publication is usually limited to newspapers having a general circulation in the community 220 or those printed and published within the municipal limits.221

218 Raker v. Village of Maquon, 9 Ill. App. 155; Town Council of Breaux's Bridge v. Dupuis, 30 La. Ann. 1105; Davidson v. Houston, 35 La. Ann. 492; North Baptist Church v. City of Orange, 54 N. J. Law, 111, 22 Atl. 1004, 14 L. R. A. 62. A statute or ordinance has no legal existence except when expressed in the language in which it is passed.

219 City of Chicago v. McCoy, 136 Ill. 344, 26 N. E. 363, 11 L. R. A. 413, affirming 33 Ill. App. 576. "It seems to be suggested by counsel that by virtue of some inherent power vested in the city, it has the right for the benefit and protection of its citizens and tax payers and their property, to provide for the publication of the matters in question in a newspaper printed in the German language. The settled rule in respect to municipal power is that, unless the power claimed is conferred in express words, or by necessary implication, it does not exist." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 49 Neb. 429. See Wilson V. Inhabitants of Trenton, 56 N. J. Law, 469, 29 Atl. 183.

220 Dumars v. City of Denver, 16 Colo. App. 375, 65 Pac. 580; Wasem V. City of Cincinnati, 2 Cin. R.

(Ohio) 84. But the manner may be discretionary with the city council. Miller v. Smith, 7 Idaho, 204, 61 Pac. 824; Tisdale v. Town of Minonk, 46 III. 9. It is not necessary that the newspaper should be published in the same town in which the ordinance is passed so long as it is a paper of general circulation in the community enact-ing the ordinance. Moss v. Village of Oakland, 88 Ill. 109; Smith v.. Yoram, 37 Iowa, 89; State v. Omaha & C. B. R. & Bridge Co., 113 Iowa,. 30, 84 N. W. 983, 52 L. R. A. 315. A publication of an extra edition to the daily newspaper is not a compliance with the requirement that ordinances shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation. City of Pittsburg v. Reynolds,. 48 Kan. 360, 29 Pac. 757. Chapter 156, Kansas Laws of 1891, in regard to the printing of legal notices, advertisements, etc., does not apply to city ordinances. City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn. 647, 64 S. W. 1075, 61 L. R. A. 888. An ordinance not invalid because published on Sunday.

221 Bayer v. City of Hoboken, 44' N. J. Law, 131, following Id., 40 N.. J. Law, 152.

Form. Charter and statutory provisions again may vary as to the form of publication. This may be in book 222 or pamphlet form,223 or by merely posting in public places or official bulletin boards true copies of the ordinance or resolution.224 The copy as printed or published should be duly authenticated 225 and usually, if an ordinance refers to maps and books, they need not be included.226

§ 530. Time of publication.

The element of time as considered in the proper publication of a municipal ordinance may refer either to the time of publication or its frequency. The usual provision is to the effect that the ordinance or resolution shall be published in the manner provided by law for a certain length of time after its final passage, 227 or a prescribed number of times within a fixed limit of time.228

222 City of Birmingham v. Tayloe, 105 Ala. 170, 16 So. 576; Merced County v. Fleming, 111 Cal. 46, 43 Pac. 392; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Winters, 65 Ill. App. 435; Whalin v. City of Macomb, 76 Ill. 49. A charter provision requiring city authorities to publish the text of its ordinance at certain specified times is directory only. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 49 Neb. 429; Law v. People, 87 Ill. 385.

223 Raker v. Village of Maquon, 9 Ill. App. 155; People v. Maxon, 139 Ill. 306, 28 N. E. 1074, 16 L. R. A. 178, affirming 38 Ill. App. 152; Standard v. Village of Industry, 55 Ill. App. 523.

224 Higley v. Bunce, 10 Conn. 436; O'Hara v. Town of Park River, 1 N. D. 279, 47 N. W. 380.

225 City of Napa v. Easterby, 76 Cal. 222. 18 Pac. 253; Moss v. Vil

228 Ex parte Fiske, 72 Cal. 125, 13 Pac. 310. The times of publication need not be necessarily consecutive. County of San Luis Obispo v. Hendricks, 71 Cal. 242; City of Sacra

lage of Oakland, 88 Ill. 109; McChesney v. City of Chicago, 159 Ill. 223.

226 City of Napa v. Easterby, 76 Cal. 222; Law v. People, 87 Ill. 385.

227 City of Napa v. Easterby, 76 Cal. 222, 18 Pac. 253; E. M. Derby & Co. v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515. A statutory provision that an ordinance must be published "at least two weeks" in some newspaper is complied with by its publication for fourteen consecutive days.

People v. Town of Linden, 107 Cal. 94; City of Chicago v. McCoy, 136 Ill. 344, 11 L. R. A. 413; Kimble v. City of Peoria, 140 Ill. 157; Richter v. Harper, 95 Mich. 221, 54 N. W. 768. A charter requirement that ordinances must be published at least one week in the official paper of the city is sufficiently complied with by the publication in such a

mento v. Dillman, 102 Cal. 107. Such a provision is directory merely. People v. Keir, 78 Mich. 98, 43 N. W. 1039.

[graphic]

§ 531. Character of ordinances.

Provisions for publication may not apply to all acts of a municipal council. Some ordinances are more important in their character either as considering the welfare of the city or the rights of those whose property or personal interests may be affected. The management, speaking generally, of the affairs of a municipality requires a great variety in character of action by the municipal legislative body. Much of this may be quasi legislative or administrative in its character; mere directions or orders to subordinate officials and employes relating to the technical details of current affairs. Other action is not only strictly legislative in its nature but it may also relate to the expenditure of large sums of money, the incurring of debts, the making of public contracts, the granting of franchises or other business of an important character. It may not be necessary to publish action of the first class229 while to render the latter effective and valid it must be published in the manner required.230 It is also customary to have penal ordinances published when such a requirement may not apply to others.231

paper as often as issued; the fact that it may have no issue on one day of the week is immaterial.

City of Hoboken v. Gear, 27 N. J. Law (3 Dutch.) 265. Publishing an ordinance once each week for three successive weeks is a sufficient compliance with a charter requirement that every ordinance shall be published twenty days. North Baptist Church v. City of Orange, 54 N. J. Law, 111, 14 L. R. A. 62; Town of Stillwater v. Moor (Okl.) 33 Pac. 1024.

229 City of Napa v. Easterby, 76 Cal. 222, 18 Pac. 253; People v. Town of Linden, 107 Cal. 94, 40 Pac. 115; Heilbron v. City of Cuthbert, 96 Ga. 312; People v. Keir, 78 Mich. 98; Fairchild v. City of St. Paul, 46 Minn. 540, 49 N. W. 325; Abraham v. Meyers, 29 Abb. N. C. 384, 23 N. Y. Supp. 225, 228. Consolidation act, N. Y. laws 1882, c. 410, $ 80, provides that no resolution or

ordinance shall be adopted concerning the alienation of city property until after the publication of an abstract thereof. The sale of a street railway franchise it not a resolution or ordinance coming within the meaning of this statute. Seitzinger v. Borough of Tamaqua, 187 Pa. 539.

230 People v. Bailhache, 52 Cal. 310; People v. Cole, 70 Cal. 59; Whalin v. City of Macomb, 76 Ill. 49; State v. Omaha & C. B. R. & Bridge Co., 113 Iowa, 30, 84 N. W. 983, 52 L. R. A. 315.

231 National Bank of Commerce v. Town of Grenada, 41 Fed. 87; City & County of San Francisco v. Buckman, 111 Cal. 25; Standard v. Village of Industry, 55 Ill. App. 523; State v. City of Noblesville, 157 Ind. 31, 60 N. E. 704; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 49 Neb. 429; Union Pac. R. Co. v. McNally, 54 Neb. 112, 74 N. W. 390; Village of

« ZurückWeiter »