Delegations of power to municipal cor porations have been held valid to provide for the increase of justices in proportion to population, and authorizing the appointment of the additional justices by county commis sioners; Board v. Smith, 22 Colo. 534, 45 Pac. 357; allowing existing municipal cor porations to elect to continue under their old charter or adopt the general incorpora tion law ; Lum v. Vicksburg, 72 Miss. 950, 18 South. 476 ; authorizing a township com mittee to determine what territory shall be included in a proposed city; Glen Ridge v. Stout, 58 N. J. L. 598, 33 Atl. 858; author izing cities of a given class to make laws for their local self-government, subject to the general laws of the state; Nelson v. Troy, II Wash. 435, 39 Pac. 974.
A municipality may require a street rail way company to sprinkle the streets to pro tect the public health ; St. Paul v. Ry. Co., 114 Minn. 250, 130 N. W. 1108, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 235, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1136; author ize the summary seizure and destruction of milk not conforming to the standard fixed by law ; Nelson v. Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 16, 127 N. W. 445, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260; or prohibit its sale except in bottles; Com. v. Drew, 208 Mass. 493, 94 N. E. 682, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 401; or prohibit the sale of food from cold storage unfit for human consump tion ; North American C. S. Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306, 29 Sup. Ct. 101, 53 L. Ed. 195, 15 Ann. Cas. 276; establish a standard weight for a loaf of bread; 2 Ont. Rep. 192 ; prohibit the sale of other sizes ; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 33 Sup. Ct. 182, 57 L. Ed. 364 ; regulate the rates which a wa ter company may collect from private con sumers (which partakes of the nature of a governmental power and of a business pow er) ; Omaha W. Co. v. Omaha, 147 Fed. 1, 77 C. C. A. 267, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 736, 8 Ann. Cas. 614.
It has been held that the vesting in some body of men or in the hands of a single in dividual the power to grant permits in spe cial cases to carry on some particular busi ness is contrary to the spirit of American institutions ; Chicago v. Trotter, 136 Ill. 430, 26 N. E. 359 ; In re Frazee, 63 Mich. 396, 30 N. W. 72, 6 Am. St. Rep. 310; State v. Fiske, 9 R. I. 94 ; Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217, 33 Am. Rep. 239 ; Sioux Falls v. Kirby, 6 S. D. 62, 60 N. W. 156, 25 L. R. A. 621, cit ing State v. Tenant, 110 N. C. 609, 14 S. E. 387, 15 L. R. A. 423, 28 Am. St. Rep. 715, where an ordinance was held void because it prescribed no general rule for the exercise of discretion in granting permits, but allowed the granting of a permit to one and the re fusal to another under the same conditions, with no reason therefor but the irresponsible and arbitrary will of the majority of the aldermen; and to the same effect, Newton v. Belger, 143 Mass. 598, 10 N. E. 464. Other cases have held that such authority cannot be delegated to adjoining lot owners ; Ex parte Sing Lee, 96 Cal. 354, 31 Pac. 245, 24 L. R. A. 195, 31 Am. St. Rep. 218 (where their permission was required by municipal ordinance in order to carry on a laundry) ; St. Louis v. Russell, 116 Mo. 248, 22 S. W. 470, 20 L. R. A. 721 (where the ordinance delegated to the owners of one-half the ground in any block the power to determine whether a livery stable may be erected there on, on the ground that they might discrim inate). In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S.
356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220, an ordi nance was held invalid which conferred an arbitrary authority upon a board to give or withhold consent to the conduct of a certain business.
But the authority to delegate that discre tion to a board appointed 'for that purpose is sustained by the great weight of author ity ; Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361, 24 Sup. Ct. 673, 48 L. Ed. 1018; Quincy v. Ken nard, 151 Mass. 563, 24 N. E. 860; State v. White, 64 N. H. 48, 5 Atl. 828 ; St. Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364, 7 N. W. 734, 38 Am. Rep. 296. Ordinances have been sustained prohibiting awnings without the consent of the mayor and aldermen ; Pedrick v. Bailey, 12 Gray (Mass.) 161; forbidding orations, harangues, etc., in a park without consent ; Corn. v. Abrahams, 156 Mass. 57, 30 N. E. 79 ; or upon the- Common or other grounds ; Corn.
v. Davis, 140 Mass. 485, 4 N. E. 577; beating a drum, etc., or making any noise with any instrument for any purpose whatever, with out written ,permission, on any street or sidewalk ; Roderick v. Whitson, 51 Hun 620, 4 Y. Supp. 112 ; giving the right to manu facturers and others to ring bells and blow whistles in such manner and at such hours as the board of aldermen or selectmen may in writing designate; Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239, 49 Am. Rep. 27 ; prohibiting the erecting or repairing of a wooden building without permission ; Hine v. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478; authorizing harbor masters to station vessels and to assign to each its place ; Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 349; forbidding the occupancy of a place on the street for a market stand without per mission ; In re Nightingale, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 168; forbidding the keeping of swine with out -a permit ; Quincy v. Kennard, 151 Mass. 563, 24 N. E. 860 ; forbidding the erection of any kind of a building without a permit ; Easton v. COvey, 74 Md. 262, 22 Atl. 266; forbidding any person from remaining with in the limits of the market more than twen ty minutes unless permitted ; Corn. v. Brooks, 109 Mass. 355; Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U. 32, 19 Sup. Ct. 317, 43 L. Ed. 603 ; giv ing the mayor power to determine whether a person applying for a license to sell ciga rettes has a good character and reputation and is a suitable person to be entrusted with their sale ; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 20 Sup. Ct. 633, 44 L. Ed. 725, affirming 176 Ill. 340, 52 N. E. 44, 48 L. R. A. 230 ; forbidding the use of bicycles on a certain road without permission ; State v. Yopp, 97 N. C. 477, 2 S. E. 458, .2 Am. St. Rep. 305; making the privilege of moving buildings on a street dependent upon permission ; Eureka City v. Wilsqn, 15 Utah, 53, 48 Pac. 41; for bidding dairies within city limits without permission; Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361, 24 Sup. Ct. 673, 48 L. Ed. 1018 ; pre scribing water meters in its own- water works ; Cooper v. Goodland, 80 Kan. 121, 102 Pac. 244, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 410.