Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/569

 AliLEBTON V. CITY OP CHICAaO. 65T �that the priee of the license is so large that the intent is ma^nifest. It is very difficult to lay down any absolute rule upon thia subject, and to hold that a particular Bum may be within the police power of the city, and another sum beyond the power, and a mere tax. �By the general law of 1872, for the incorporation of cities and villages in this state, it is provided that the city council in cities shall have authority to license hackmen, draymen, omnibus drivers, cabmen, expressmen, and ail others pur- suing like occupations, and to prescribe their compensation. This was obviously intended as conferring a police power upon the city council in reiatiou to the varions classes named in the statute. This is a power that has been uniformly ex- .ereised, and, construing the statute literally, cahnot weil be questioned. But it is claimed' it does not include the street r9,ilway, because it is not pursuing an occupation like any of those named. �■ Omnibuses may be licensed. They may pasa over even the same stteets as those oeoujpied by the horse railways, and they may carry ' jiassengers in the same manner. Ihe oHly distinctioix -wMch can be called substantial betVeen the twb classes of occupation is that oiie earriage 'goes upon' irofl rails, in a reghlar track, with wheels, and the 'o*her carriage' goes with wheels upon the ordinary street vray. �The supretne court of Pennsyivahia 'bas held that these street-railway carriages are of a like nature as omnibuses, and there can be no doubt, I think, of thfl right of the city to demand a license froin ail omnibus drivers, and toinclude every omnibus which may belong to a particular company or eorporatiouj and to require the payment of a license for such omnibus that may be so owned and used. �The court of appeals of New York, in the case of May or 7^ Second Avenue B. 32 N. Y. 261, held that an ordinance of the city of New York, in many respects like this, was invalid, as an attempt, through coloi of a license, ta impose a tax upon the raUroad company, refusing to treat it as an exercise of the police power of the city. The price charg^d in that fcaise for the license was the same as in this. ��� �