3 N.W.2d 666 | Minn. | 1942
The question presented is the validity of the ordinance. The defendants contend that the city had no right to require a license and that no license was needed for the operation of their bus. The defendants held a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the railroad and warehouse commission purporting to authorize them to conduct their common carrier operations from points in the village of Richfield to "the loop district of Minneapolis" on certain streets of that city, some of which carried trunk highways and some of which did not. It is the contention of the defendants that the certificate of the railroad and warehouse commission confers upon them the privilege of operating their bus over the route named notwithstanding the Minneapolis ordinance and the fact that they have no license thereunder.
L. 1925, c. 185, Mason St. 1927, §§ 5015-1 to 5015-19, subjected the supervision and regulation of transportation of persons and property for hire on the public highways of this state by motor vehicles as common carriers to the jurisdiction and control of the railroad and warehouse commission, but § 18 of that act, as amended in 1929, L. 1929. c. 154, provided: *390
"No provision in this act shall authorize the use by any transportation company of any public highway in any city of the first class, whether organized under Section 36, Article
It is the contention of the city that this section reserves and grants to it authority to regulate by license the operation of motor omnibuses as provided for in the ordinance cited. It is the contention of the defendants that section 18 is unconstitutional and void because the title of the act is not broad enough to cover its provisions. It is the further contention of the defendants that L. 1923, c. 418, § 3(f), Mason St. 1927, § 2674(f), which provides:
"No borough, village or city shall impose any tax or license fee or bond of any kind for the operation of any motor vehicle operated upon trunk highways in this state on interurban or inter-village routes and engaged as a common carrier of passengers or freight for hire through any such borough, village or city," nullified the ordinance here in controversy.
It is conceded that even if the city council acted arbitrarily in denying a license to the defendants it is no defense to a prosecution *391
for a violation of the ordinance. State v. Lindquist,
1. We find no difficulty with the contention that L. 1925, c. 185, § 18, as amended by L. 1929, c. 154, does not come within the purview of the title. Insofar as § 18 is an exception to or reservation from the general application of the act, it is germane to the title and comes within the rule announced in C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth,
2. Sp. L. 1881, c. 76, constituted the charter of Minneapolis until it adopted a home rule charter November 2, 1920. Section 1 of subchapter 8 of c. 76 provided:
"The city council shall have the care, supervision and control of all highways, streets, alleys, public squares and grounds within the limits of the city."
Section 5 of subchapter 4 provided that the city council should have power by ordinance to provide for the government and good order of the city "as it shall deem expedient."
Section 2, c. XX, of the home rule charter under which the city is now operating provided that the city and its boards and departments shall have all the powers which the city and its departments and boards had at the time of the adoption of the charter in addition to such further powers as might be conferred in the home rule charter.
Under this delegation of sovereignty, we have no difficulty in determining that the motorbus ordinance passed October 25, 1918, *392
was within the police power granted to the city. This court has so often passed upon similar delegations of sovereignty to cities and has so frequently upheld their powers of control over their public streets that an extended citation of authorities is wholly unnecessary. As this court held in Schultz v. City of Duluth,
"To do business upon public streets is not a matter of right like the right of ordinary travel. Nor is the right to carry on such a business to be placed upon the same basis as that of conducting a lawful occupation upon private property within a municipality. The use of public streets for private enterprise may be for the public good, but even so it is a privilege that may be granted, regulated or withheld. * * * a municipality having the care and control of its streets and the authority to look to their convenient and safe travel may regulate and even exclude the carrying on of a transportation business thereon for private gain, or grant the privilege to some and exclude others, since no one has a right as of course to carry on a private business upon the public streets."
See also City of St. Paul v. Twin City Motor Bus Co.
3. Defendants contend that L. 1923, c. 418, § 3(f), operated to annul and repeal the power of the city under which the ordinance of October 25, 1918, was passed. This contention ignores the language of the subdivision. Section 3 of c. 418 relates entirely to the rate of tax, and subd. (f) does not purport to take away from the city any part of its police power except the right to impose a fee for the issuance of a license. The city's power to control motor vehicles engaged in the carriage of passengers for hire remained as it was in every other respect. The question of the *393 license fee as distinguished from the power to require a license is not here involved.
The act of 1923 was a tax measure. True, it imposed a tax upon motor vehicles which was both a property tax and a privilege tax, but nevertheless it was a tax measure and not one purporting to restrain or restrict the police power of a city aside from prohibiting the imposition of a tax or fee, whereas L. 1925, c. 185, was an exercise of the police power in the supervision and regulation of the transportation of persons and property for hire by motor vehicles. Section 18 of the latter chapter specifically excepted the police powers of the city from the general grant of such powers to the railroad and warehouse commission.
Whether or not subd. (f) applies to buses operating routes terminating in a city as distinguished from those passing "through" is a question not necessary to decision here. And if the subdivision applies to traffic terminating in the city, the question whether § 18 restored the right to impose a license fee in connection with the grant of a license to such vehicles to be used in streets is not here involved.
L. 1923, c. 418, was cited to this court in City of St. Paul v. Twin City Motor Bus Co.
Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago,
We conclude that the challenge to the validity of the ordinance, insofar as the granting of a license is concerned, is ill-founded, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Affirmed. *394