BYEZHETSK, a town in the Tver province of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, on the right bank of the Mologa river. Lat. 57° 48' N., Long. 36° 39' E. Pop. (1926) 12,236. It is on a railway, and has a radio station. Its scythes, agricultural implements and hardware are noted and it also trades in grain, linen, hemp and flax. It is mentioned in the chronicles of and, on the fall of Novgorod, to which it had belonged, it was incorporated, in 1479, with the Moscow Grand-Duchy.
It is a rule of law that when the power to make by-laws exists, whether at common law or by statute, its existence imports the power to enforce the by-law by penalties, but obedience to it can not be enforced by the imprisonment of the offender; the only penalty is a pecuniary one, i.e., the infliction of a fine or the re covery by action of a money penalty (see Hall v. Nixon, L.R. Io Q.B. 1J9). It is usual, however, for any statute giving power to make by-laws to incorporate by reference the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, in which case the offender against the by-law is, in default of a fine, liable to imprisonment. County councils are expressly given by s. 16 of the Local Government Act of 1888 the same power of making by-laws in relation to their county as the council of a borough have in relation to their borough. There is an important difference between statutory rules and orders (q.v.) and by-laws, in that the latter, unlike the former, can be quashed by the courts, even when they are otherwise intra vires, on the mere ground that they are "unreasonable," i.e., oppressive or in conflict with the common law. The courts have further laid it down (Salt v. Scott Hall, 1903, K.B. 245) that even though a by-law may be reasonable in its general operation and therefore not to be quashed as such, the subject is protected against its oppressive enforcement in a particular case by the rule that the magistrates are not bound to convict in every case of infringe ment of a by-law that comes before them. The magistrates have power under s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, if they think the circumstances warrant such a course, to dismiss the summons.
There is another check upon the abuse of the power of making by-laws, viz., the superior power of a central department to "disallow" them. The by-laws of a county council require the assent of the Ministry of Health; the by-laws of a municipal corporation may be disallowed by the king on the advice of the Privy Council. This, however, is a negative power, and the fact that a Government department has not disallowed a by-law, or has approved it, in no way deprives the courts of the power to pronounce it unreasonable. The by-laws of railway companies require the approval of yet another Government department, the Board of Trade.
The courts have laid down the important principle that in the exercise of their power to declare a by-law "unreasonable" they will extend more latitude to the interpretation of by-laws made by local authorities than to that of by-laws made by "profit making companies," which latter "the courts must scrutinize jealously" (see Kruse v. Johnson, 1898, 2 Q.B.) 91, which may now be regarded as the leading case on the subject) . In that cast, the court held that the by-law of a local authority "ought to be supported unless it was manifestly partial and unequal in its operation between different classes, or unjust, or made in bad faith, or clearly involving an unjustifiable interference with the liberty of those subject to it." The Interpretation Act of 1889 enacts that a statutory power to make by-laws includes a power to rescind, revoke, amend and vary them, a fact which, as the court observed in that case, means that a local authority can always, under the pressure of the public opinion of the locality, be compelled to alter them if they are unpopular or unnecessary. Furthermore, the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882 has inter posed certain safeguards in the exercise of this legislative function such as the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the council and of 4o days notice to the burgesses. By-laws may therefore be regarded as a class of "subordinate" or "delegated" legislation which is wholly free from the oppressive and arbitrary character which too often attaches to the legislative activities of Govern ment departments, invested by statutes of their own devising with the power to make "statutory orders" having the full force of a statute and, as such, uncontrollable by the courts of law.
(J. H. Mo.) United States.—In America the term by-law refers to the rules made by a private corporation for the regulation of cor porate affairs. Their binding force is derived from mutual assent, either express or implied, on the part of the members. Non members and non-assenting members are not subject to them. Usually the power to make by-laws is specifically granted in the charter, which may also expressly limit the scope, application, use and purpose of such corporate legislation. Ordinarily, special persons, such as the directors, are vested with the power of making by-laws. Where this is not done, power lies in the members-at large. In contradistinction to the British usage, the term by-law does not include municipal ordinances.