Judge Cooley considers that local self-gov ernment being a part of the English and American system, it is to be understood that even if it is not expressly recognized in a constitution, the instrument is presumed to contemplate its existence and continuance; Cooley, Const. Lim. [35]; People v. Common Council of Detroit, 28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 202; People v. Albertson, 55 N. Y. 50. It is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty be longing to the legislative power of a state to create corporate bodies for municipal pur poses with the means of self-government; Hope v. Deaderick, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 1, 47 Am. Dec. 597 ; or to delegate to municipal assemblies the power of enacting ordinances relating to local matters ; New Orleans Wa ter Works Co. v. New Orleans, 164 U. S. 471, 17 Sup. Ct. 161, 41 L. Ed. 518. This is not regarded as a delegation of legislative power, because the local board or municipal body which is invested with such powers is re garded as exercising them as an agency for local legislation of the sovereign power of the state. The settled judicial opinion is thus well expressed: "It seems to be gener ally conceded that powers of local legisla tion may be granted to cities, towns, and other municipal corporations. And it would require strong reasons to satisfy us that it could have been the design of the framers of our constitution to take from the legisla ture a power which has been exercised in Europe by governments of all classes from the earliest history, and the exercise of which has probably done more to promote civilization than all other causes combined ; which has been constantly exercised in every part of our country from its earliest settle ment, and which has raised up among us many of our most valuable institutions." 10 Post. 292 ; Stone v. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 214; Com. v. Conyngham, 65 Pa. 76; Mills v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 415, 9 Am. Rep. 578 ; People v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532 ; State v. Wil cox, 45 Mo. 458 ; Goldthwaite v. City Coun cil, 50 Ala. 486. The creation of such corpo rations and the grant to them of powers of local legislation do not divest or impair the general legislative power and control of the state legislature, which may increase, dimin ish, or take away such powers, amend the charter, overrule their legislative action, or abolish them altogether. There can be acquir ed by the municipal corporation as against the state no vested right in the rights and franchises granted to it, and the municipal charter does not constitute a contract, so that such legislation would be considered in viola tion of the constitutional provision protecting the obligation of contracts ; Cooley, Const. Lim. [192]. This principle is recognized in the Dartmouth College case; Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 518, 4 L. Ed. 629; Dillon, Municipal Corporations, §§ 24, 30, 37 ; see People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 87, 9 Am. Rep.. 103; and it may be affirmed that it is supported by a uniform current of authority. It is true that here and there may. be found expres sions by courts and judges, which, to the casual reader, would give the impression that there may be some inviolable character attached to a grant of municipal franchises, hut an examination of such cases will usu ally, if not invariably, disclose the fact that the expressions referred to go beyond the proper consideration of the case in question, and in any case are unsupported by authori ty. The true principle is thus stated: "Pub lic corporations are but parts of the machin ery employed in carrying on the affairs of the state ; and they are subject to be chang ed, modified, or destroyed as the exigencies of the public may demand. The state may exercise a general superintendence and con trol over them and their rights and effects, so that their property is not diverted from the uses and objects for which it was given or purchased ;" Trustees of Schools v. Tat man, 13 Ill. 30. The complete legislative control over municipal corporations is said to be subject to some limits, of which some are "expressly defined ; others spring from the usages, customs, and maxims of our peo ple; they are a part of its history, a part of the system of local self-government, in view of the continuance and perpetuity of which all our institutions are framed, and of the right to which the people can never be de prived express renunciation on their part." Cooley, Const. Lim. [230.] See pi PAWN° THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
Such is the right of choosing under forms and restrictions prescribed by the legisla ture, officers of local administration, and the determination by the local administra tion of the pecuniary burdens it will assume; Cooley, Const. Lim. [230]; so it has been
held that the legislature cannot divest a mu nicipal corporation, of property legally ac quired by it ; City of Savannah v. Steam Boat Co., R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 342. As the rule is sometimes expressed, municipal pow ers may be changed by the legislature if vested rights acquired thereunder are saved; People v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343.
Illustrations of the authority which may be delegated to municipal corporations are: The regulation of charges • of common card ers ; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 199 I11. 484, 65 N. E..451, 59 L. R. A. 631; making it a crime to carry deadly weapons; Town of Ocean Springs v. Green, 77 Miss. 472, 27 South. 743; passing ordinances for the protection of the safety of citizens ; Sluder v. Transit Co., 189 Mo. 107, 88 S. W. 648, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 186; the appointment of municipal administrative officers ; Attor ney General v. Bolger, 128 Mich. 355, 87 N. W. 366; the suppression of gambling games ; City of Lake Charles v. Roy, 115 La. 939, 40 South. 362; requiring fire escapes and providing for their inspection; Arms v. Ayer, 192 Ill. 601, 61 N. E. 851, 58 L. R. A. 277, 85 Am. St. Rep. 357; sealing and regulating weights and measures ; Thompson v. District of Columbia, 21 App. (D. C.) 395 ; the forma tion of sanitary districts for the construction of sewers, etc.; In re Werner, 129 Cal. 567, 62 Pac. 97 ; the control of the streets of a city by a local board, administrative or legisla tive; Wilcox v. McClellan, 185 N. Y. 9, 77 N. E. 986; the classification of lawyers for taxation, to be made according to the cir cumstances of each case and subject to ap peal for correction if erroneous; Ould v. City of Richmond? 23 Grat. (Va.) 464, 14 Am. Rep. 139; prescribing the duties of justices of the peace ; State v. Nohl, 113 Wis. 15, 88 N. W. 1004 ; the appointment of com missioners to divide a city into wards and voting districts; Kennedy v. Mayor of Paw tucket, 24 R. I. 461, 53 Atl. 317 ;'authorizing the common council to apply to a court for the appointment of a municipal excise board; Schwarz v. Dover, 72 N. J. L. 311, 62 Atl. 1135. But the legislature has no power by contract to invest a municipal corporation with an irrevocable franchise of government over any part of its territory ; Horton v. City Council, 27 R. I. 283, 61 Atl. 759, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 512, 8 Ann. Cas. 1097 ; nor to invest it with power to suspend a penal law within its corporate limits ; Ex parte Coombs, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 648, 44 S. W. 854.
Where the legislature uses its power to change or modify the political rights and privileges of municipal corporations, a dis tinction is drawn between those rights and mere property rights acquired by the cor poration, which are protected for the same reasons and upon the same principle as are, similar rights in individuals; Cooley, Const. Lim. [237], where the cases are collected. In any state the legislative power must spend its force within its own territorial limits. It cannot make laws by which peo ple outside of the jurisdiction must govern their actions except as they choose to resort to the remedies provided by the state or deal with property situated within it. See FOR EIGN CORPORATIONS ; LEX FORI. It can have no authority upon the high seas beyond state lines because that is the point of contact with other nations and brings into operation and consideration the principles of interna tional law with which the federal govern ment alone can deal. See FISHERY ; SEA. As a general rule the state cannot provide for the punishment of acts committed be yond the state boundary, because such acts, if offences at all, are such only against the sovereignty within whose limits they have been done ; Cooley, Const. Lim. [128]. In some cases, however, where "the consequenc es of an unlawful act committed outside the state,. have reached their ultimate and inju rious result within it, it seems that the per petrator may be punished as an offender against such state." Id. Such cases arise most frequently where property is stolen in one jurisdiction and carried into another, or where a homicide is committed by a mor tal blow in one jurisdiction while death re sults in another ; see Morissey v. People, 11 Mich. 327; Watson v. State, 36 Miss. 593.
The legislative power over a place pur chased by the United States with the con sent of the legislature of the state, is trans ferred from the state to the federal govern ment, except as restrained by some qualifica tion in the expression of state consent ; Alle gheny County v. McClung, 53 Pa. 482. See