In Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cra. (U. S.) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, the question whether the com mission of a public officer was improperly withheld from him was held to be a judicial and not a political question, but a mandamus to the secretary of state to deliver it was refused because the court had not original jurisdiction to issue it. But in Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 475, 18 L. Ed. 437, an injunction to restrain the president from executing the reconstruction acts was refused on the ground that the bill presented a political and not a judicial questienr.
In Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. (1.r. S.) '50, 71, 18 L. Ed. 721, it was said that the dis tinctiOn between judicial and political power is so generally acknowledged in the jurispru dence both of England and of this country that we need do no more than refer to some of the authorities' On the subject. The suit invoked the the court to restrain the secretary of *hi and his subordinates from executing acts of congress which, it was alleged, would annul and abolish an ex isting state government. In refusing the in junction the court said that it could hardly be denied that the case called for the judg pent of the court upon political questions and upon rights, not of persons or property, but of a political character. "For the rights for the protection of which our authority is invoked, are the rights Of sovereignty, of political jurisdiction, of government, of cor porate existence as a state, with all its con stitutional powers and privileges. No case of private rights or private property infring ed, or in danger of actual or threatened in fringement, is presented by the bill, in judi cial form, for the judgment of the court." Among the questions' which have been held to be judicial questions and within the pow ers of the courts to decide are: Whether an amendment to the constitution has been Con stitutionally adopted; Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118, 74 Pac. 710, 75 Pac. .222; even though a contrary declaration had been made by the political department of the state gov ernment; Gabbert v. Ry. Co., 171 Mo. 84; 70 S. W. 891; whether an apportionment of senators and representatives, involved an abuse of legislative discretion by a defiance of the constitutional limitations thereon ; Brooks v. State, 162 Ind. 568, 70 N. E. 980; whether license fees are a reasonable imposi tion under the police power ; •Margolies v. Atlantic City,' 67 N. J. L. 82, 50 Atl. 367; whether legislation ostensibly under the po lice power is really such when the constitu tionality of the act is. assailed ; Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34, 27 Sup. Ct. '419, 51 L. Ed. 696, 10 Ann. Cas. 525, affirming 74 Neb. 757, 105 N. W. 298, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1079, 121 Am. St. Rep. 754; the validity of a 'plea of privilege set up by a member of the legislature in bar to an action for slander uttered on the floor of the HouSe; Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 3 Am. Dec. 189 ; whethek the use authorized by the legislature of a reservoir in connection with the water sup ply is or is not a public use ; Miller v. Fitch burg, 180 Mass. 32, 61 N. E. 277; whether a right has vested ; Rice v. State, 7 Ind. 332; the power of laying out or altering streets vested in the mayor and aldermen ; Parks v. Boston, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 218,' 19 Am. Dec. 322; the power to hear and 'decide proceed ings for the summary disposition of tenants, and a writ of prohibition was granted to re strain the recorder from proceeding in such case after his judicial powers had been transferred' to the city judge; People v. Rus
sel, 19 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 136 ; People v. Rus sel, 29 Hbw. Pr. (N. Y.) 176; whether cer tain coitiorations shall' be accepted as sole security ; In re' American Banking &' Trust Co., 17 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 274 ; whether a tax is invalidated, by failure of assessors to com ply with the law; Plumer v. Board of Sup'rs, 46 Wis. 163, 50 N. W. 416 (but an act making tax bills prima facie evidence of the validity of the charge against the property was not an invasion of the judicial power ; City of St. Joseph v. Farrell, 106 Mo. 437', 17 S. W. 497.) What occupations are the proper subjects of the police power is a judicial' question; Price v. People, 193 Ill. 114, 61 N. E. 844, 55 L. R. A. 588, 86 Am. St. Rep. 306; and the legislative deterthination as to what is the proper exercise of that power is not final, but is subject to the supervision' of the courts; Moeschen v. Tenement House De partment of City of New York, 203 II. S.583, 27 Sup. Ct. 51 L. Ed. 328, affirming Tenement House Department of City of New York v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 72'N. E. 231, 70 L. R. A. 704, 103 Am. St. 'Rep. 910, 1 Ann. Cas. 439 (the tenement house case) ; tut unless the court can see that a given po lice regulation has no just relation to the ob ject which it purports to carry out or to the Protection of the public .health, safety, com fort, or morals, the decision of the legislature as to its necessity or reasonableness is con clusive; Odd Fellows' Cemetery Ass'n V. City of San Francisco, 140 Cal. 226, 73 Pac. 987.• • On the other hand, among the cases which have been held to be within the exclusive ju risdiction of the political branches of the government and not reviewable by the courts are: What property shall be embraced with in a tax distkict, and whether it shall be taxed for municipal purposes ; Kettle v. City of Dallas, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 80 S. W. 874; Whether property is benefited by the construction of a sewer (in the absence of fraud); Prior v. Const. Co., 170 Mo. 439, 71 S. W. 205 ; the reasonableness of a munici pal license tax upon the privilege of conduct ing a business ; Woodall v. City of Lynch burg, 100 Va. 318, 46 S. E. 915 ; the reason ableness of a particular regulation of a use ful business; Ex parte Whitwell, 98 Cal. 73, 32 Pac. 870, 19 L. R. A. 727, 35 Am. St. Rep. 152; the amount and necessity of taxation; Street v. City of Columbus, 75 Miss. 822, 23 South. 773 ; the repeal of a' charter which was expressly subject to repeal, unless. in a case where the legislature should exercise its power in such a manner •as. to violate clearly the principles of natural jtistice; Lothrop v. Stedman, 42 Conn. 583, 13 Blatchf. 134, Fed. Cas. No. 8,519; the adjustment of a debt between a new county and the old one from which it. had been carved out ; River side County v.. San Bernardino County, 134 Cal. 517, 66 Pac. 788; the disposal of, prop erty belonging to the state; State v. Bryan, 50 Fla. 293, 39 South. 929; whether an ap propriation shall or shall not be made; Carr v.• State, 127 Incl. 204, 26 N. E. 778, 11 L. R. A. 370, 22 Am. St. Rep. 624; whether a sys tem of classification adopted by the legisla ture is good or vicious ; State v. Kolsem,•130 Ind. 434, 29 N. E. 595, 14 L. R. A. 566; the applicability of a general law to a particular case, and the necessity or propriety of a spe cial law; Weston v. Ryan, 70 Neb. 211, 97 N. W. 347, 6 Ann. Cas. 922 ; Smith v. son County, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 153, 44 a W. 921.