544 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
were held unreasonable and therefore invalid. The decision in 
the Circuit Court had been by Judge Brewer along precisely the 
same lines as in Reagan vs. Trust Company, above. This was 
affirmed with no new suggestions, unless, perhaps, the one that a 
fair value of the property used must be the basis of any reason- 
able rate, and that this is to be determined from all the relevant 
circumstances in the case.* 
In C., B. & Q. Railroad Company vs. The State of Nebraska, 
the rights of state and city in controlling streets is considered. A 
viaduct had been constructed in Omaha under a statute authorizing 
a division of expenses in such work between the railway companies 
and the city. It had been built as the result of an agreement be- 
tween two companies jointly and the city. It became out of repair, 
and the city, under a new statute requiring the railroads to main- 
tain such viaduct, assessed the cost of repairing against the roads. 
The court holds that although the city had originally agreed to bear 
two-fifths of the expense, there was no ground to hold that the city 
had parted or could part with its police power to require the roads 
to comply with the law as to repairing the street. 
In Hawker vs. The People? the right of the state to prescribe 
the qualifications of those who may practice medicine was strin- 
gently upheld. The law forbade any one who had been convicted 
of a felony from practicing medicine. It was attacked on the 
ground that it was ex fost facto, and provided an additional pun- 
ishment after the commission of the offense. Hawker had been 
convicted of felony and had served his time of punishment before 
the enactment of the law. The court, however, says that the pur- 
pose of the act was to secure reliable service to the people in sick- 
ness and was not punishment. If some additional hardship is 
incidentally suffered by those who had previous to its enactment 
been convicted of crimes, as was the case with Hawker, such fact 
did not vitiate the law nor take away its application to them. 
In *Rhodes vs. Iowa and ‘Vance vs. Vandercook Co., both de- 
cided May g, 1898, the liquor laws came back again, in the former 
case the old dispute between the commerce clause and the state 
exercising its duty of police. The question was simply whether 
the imported ‘‘ goods”’ or ‘‘ evils,’’ as the state law esteemed them, 
could be seized while in the possession of the transporting agen- 
URL ONCL Seah 7): 370) is Shy Aes 
2 Td., 189 (1898). 4 Td,, 468. 
