62 Wilson v. New York 62, 753, 800, v. Poole Windham v. Portland Worrell v. Munn 801, 802 Worsley v. Municipality 385, 386 Wray v. Pittsburgh 645, 647, 751 Wingate v. Eniskillen Oil, &c. Co. v. Chicago 606 384 v. Defrees 248 V. Fawcett Winona v. Huff v. Linn 433, 442 491, 494, 503, 507, 520, 523 v. Victoria 445, 498 Winpenny v. Philadelphia Winsboro v. Smart 77 Wyandotte City v. Wood 319 Wyley v. Wilson 24, 24a 204 Winship v. Enfield 788 Wyman v. New York Winslow v. Commissioners 446, 749 Wyncoop v. Society 503 90 Winston v. Mosebey 668, 680 Wynne v. Wright 291, 591 Wisby v. Boute 491, 494, 505 Wisconsin v. Duluth 14 X. Wiswall v. Hill 72 Withers v. Buckley 454 Xiquer v. Bujac 504, 508, 510, 526 Woelpper v. Philadelphia Wolcott v. Wolcott Wolfe v. Railroad Co. 558, 570 Wood v. Bank 21 v. Brooklyn 23, 51 Yarmouth, Borough of 263 v. North Yarmouth 30, 47 497, 504 v. Jefferson County Bank 241 Yates v. Judd v. Lynn v. Mears v. Peake v. Searl v. Ward v. Waterville 381 581, 583, 794 v. Milwaukee 70, 71, 75, 308, 323, 324, 497 739 Yeatman v. Crandell 340, 349 York v. Forscht 796 Yost's Report 383 Young v. Bank Woodbridge v. Detroit 596, 597, 632 Woodbury v. Hamilton Woodfolk v. Railroad Co. 13 488 Woodruff v. Neal 496, 513, 515, 524 v. Parkham v. Boston v. Buckingham v. Camden County 600, 617 91, 302 458 50 735 199, 221 407 v. Commissioners 176, 761, 762 v. St. Louis 591 v. Trapnall 41 v. Yarmouth Woods v. Lawrence County 108, 421, 425 Z. Woodson v. Skinner 449, 514, 518 Woodstock v. Gallup Woodyer v. Hadden 501 Woolrich v. Forrest Worcester v. Canal Co. 252 552, 796 464, 476 Zabriskie v. Railroad Co. 23, 104, 312, 559, 564 592, 622 121 Zanesville v. Richards 373, 386, 390, 610 366 Zylstra v. Charleston 272, 273, 277, 302, 303, 359, 366, 744 Work v. State Workingtam v. Johnson 261 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. MUNICIPAL CHAPTER I. INSTITUTIONS.-INTRODUCTORY HISTORICAL 1. IT does not fall within the scope of the present treatise to give a detailed account of the origin and rise of cities and towns, nor to trace minutely the history of the rights, powers, and jurisdiction with which they are now generally invested. Such an inquiry more appropriately belongs to the legal antiquary or to the historian; and yet a brief historical survey of the rise and progress of municipalities is essential to an intelligent understanding, even its practical bearings, of the subject of which it is proposed to treat. The origin of towns and cities, and the exercise by them, to a greater or less extent, of local jurisdiction, may be ascribed to a very early period. Phanicia and Egypt were long noted for their large and splendid cities. In the latter country, we find Memphis, one of the old world's proudest capitals, whose location, even, was, until very recently, a matter of learned conjecture and speculation. It was, centuries ago, buried beneath the sands of the encroaching desert, and in our own day it has been exhumed in the presence of Bedouins too wild to be interested in the wondrous revelations of its entombed mysteries. Temples and buildings, vast and magnificent, dating, probably, fifteen centuries before the Christian era, and preserved by burial, both from decay and spoilation, may to-day be seen almost in their original perfection. There, too, in "old, hushed Egypt and its sands," on the banks of the Nile, are the massive ruins of Thebes (Diospolis), the city of "the hundred gates," ante-dating secular history, and claimed by the Egyptians to have been the first capital, as it undoubtedly was one of the oldest cities, of the world. As the eye runs along the colonnades of ruined temples, the mind runs back through the Egypt of the Ptolemies to the Egypt of the Pharaohs, four thousand years ago, when Thebes was in its splendor and its pride. But in the midst of these stupendous remains of this early civilization, we find no evidence of their municipal history and organization. The chief lesson they teach is, that they were the centres of great wealth and power in the governing classes, and that the people, who constitute the true wealth of modern cities, were at the absolute disposal of their masters, bound down and degraded by servitude. § 2. Notwithstanding the people of Greece were of a common blood, language, and religion, Greece was never politically united. Political power resided not in a number of independent states, but in a large number of free and independent cities, with districts of country adjoining or attached to them. Each city, except in Aitica, was sovereign --was the sole source of supreme authority-and possessed the exclusive management and control of its own affairs. The citizen of one was a foreigner in the others, and could not, without permission or grant, acquire property, make contracts, or marry out of his own city. The Grecian heart always glowed with patriotic fervor for the city, but rarely, except in times of great common danger, kindled with a love for the whole country. And although, according to Chancellor Kent,' the "civil and political institutions of some of the states of Greece bear some analogy to the counties, cities, and towns in our American states," yet the analogy, it must be confessed, is both remote and uncertain, and without practical value in the inquiries we are to prosecute. § 3. Municipal as well as private corporations were familiar to the Roman Law. "To conceive," says a modern writer, "of ancient Rome as the capital of Italy in the same sense that London is the capital of England, or Paris of France, would be a great mistake. London and Paris are 1 Kent Com. 268, note. the chief cities of their respective countries, because they are the seat of government. The people of these cities and their surrounding districts have no privileges superior to those of other English or French citizens. But the city of ancient Rome, with her surrounding territory, was a great corporate body or community, holding sovereignty over the whole of Italy and the provinces." None but persons enrolled on the lists of the tribes had a vote in the popular assemblies or any share in the government or legislation of the city."' The common division of civic communities established by the Roman government was three, prefectures, municipal towns, and colonies. The prefectures did not enjoy the right of self-government, but were under the rule of prefects, and the inhabitants were subjected to the burdens, without enjoying any of the privileges of Roman citizens. But with the municipal towns it was different. They at length received the full Roman franchise, "and hence," says the learned author just named, "arose the common conception of a municipal town; that is, a community of which the citizens are members of the whole nation, all possessing the same rights, and subject to the same burdens, but retaining the administration of law and government in all local matters which concern not the nation at large,"-a description which answers almost perfectly to the modern notion of municipal organizations in England and America. The colonies, composed of Roman citizens, were established by the parent city, sometimes to reward public services, but generally as a means of securing and holding the country which had been subdued by Roman arms. The constitution of these colonies, and the rights of the citizens and communities composing them, varied, but it is not necessary for our purpose to trace these differences. The colonies were obliged to provide for the erection of a city, and cities thus erected were called municipia. We thus perceive the justness of the observations of a distinguished modern historian and statesman, who says that "the history of the conquest of the world by Rome is the history of the conquest and foundation of a vast number of cities. In the Roman world in Europe 'Dr. Liddell, Rome, chap. XXVII. sec. 8 there was an almost exclusive preponderance of cities and an absence of country populations and dwellings.' The nation was a vast congeries of municipalities bound together by the central power of Rome. When the Romans colonized and settled the countries they had conquered they established fixed governments and carried with them, and to a greater or less extent necessarily imparted, their arts, sciences, language, and civilization to their new subjects. And although the political condition of the vanquished people was far from being desirable, still the immediate residence among them of the civilized Roman could not fail to produce effects more or less beneficial; and thus the municipia, securing what the Roman arms had achieved, became the efficient means of spreading civilization throughout the Roman world. § 4. After the subversion of the Roman Empire the towns of Europe from the fifth to the tenth century were in a state neither of servitude nor liberty, though their condition differed greatly in different countries. During this period the power and influence of the towns were, in general, on the decline. The power of the church was great, and the inhabitants found their chief protection in the clergy. The establishment of the feudal system worked a great 'M. Guizot's Hist. Civilization in Europe, Lect. II.: "Rome, in its origin, was a mere municipality, a corporation. In Italy, around Rome, we find nothing but cities-no country places, no villages. The country was cultivated, but not peopled. The proprietors dwelt in cities. If we follow the history of Rome, we find that she founded or conquered a host of cities. It was with cities that she fought, it was with cities she treated, into cities she sent colonies. In the Gauls and Spain we meet with nothing but cities; the country around is marsh and forest. In the monuments left us of ancient Rome we find great roads extending from city to city; but the thousands of little by-paths now intersecting every part of the country were unknown. Neither do we find traces of the immense number of churches, castles, country seats, and villages which were spread all over the country during the middle ages. The only bequests of Rome consist of vast monuments impressed with a municipal character, destined for a numerous population, crowded into a single spot. A municipal corporation like Rome might be able to conquer the world, but it was a much more difficult task to mould it into one compact body." I. See also 2 Kent Com. 270, note; Dr. Adam Smith's interesting chapter: Wealth of Nations, book III. chap. II. |