At all railroad depots ten minutes previous to the arrival of all passenger trains." Rev. Code of Chicago, § 498. The validity of this ordinance has been sustained by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, 181 Illinois, 289. Perceiving nothing in the above provisions inconsistent with any right secured by the Constitution of the United States, we accept the decision of the state court as authoritative upon this point. When, therefore, licensed hackmen and cabmen, at appropriate times, placed their vehicles in the public street, next to the sidewalk, in front of the company's passenger house, they did not violate the regulations established by the city council. Nor, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, did they violate such regulations, when, leaving their vehicles in the public street, at the appointed places, they stood near by them for a reasonable time upon the sidewalk awaiting the coming of passengers from the station house. What they could not legally do what the final decree properly forbade them to do —was to congregate upon the sidewalk in front of, adjacent to or about the passenger house, so as to interfere with the ingress and egress of passengers. Of course, any use of the sidewalk in whatever way that would unnecessarily or unduly obstruct and interfere with passengers in their going or coming would be inconsistent with the rights of such passengers, as well as an infringement of the right of the company as abutting property owner to have, by its agents and employés, for the purposes of its business, reasonable access to and from the sidewalk and the public street.

It only remains to inquire as to the competency of a court of equity to give the railroad company the relief it sought. The defendants insist that equity cannot properly interfere. But the inadequacy of a legal remedy in such a case as this one is quite apparent. According to the record the attempt of the defendants, despite the objections of the company, to use its station house and depot grounds for the purpose of meeting passengers and soliciting their patronage, was of constant, daily, almost hourly occurrence. The case was one of a con

tinuing trespass, involving injury of a permanent nature. A suit at law could only have determined the particular wrong occurring on a particular occasion, and would not reach other wrongs of like character that would occur almost every hour of each day, as passengers arrived at the station of the company. The same state of things existed in reference to such use of the sidewalk in front of the passenger station as unduly interfered with the rights of passengers arriving and departing. Only a court of equity was competent to meet such an unusual emergency, and by a comprehensive decree determine finally and once for all the entire controversy between the parties thus avoiding a multiplicity of suits and conserving the public interests. No remedy at law would be so complete or efficacious as a suit in equity in such a case as this one. Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 144 U. S. 550; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 517. The Supreme Court of Illinois well said in Chicago General Ry. Co. v. C., B. & Q. R., 181 Illinois, 605, 611: "When irreparable injury is spoken of it is not meant that the injury is beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond the possibility of compensation in damages, but it must be of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law." See also Newell v. Sass, 142 Illinois, 104, 115, 116; Carpenter v. Capital Electric Co., 178 Illinois, 29, 36; Lowery v. Pekin, 186 Illinois, 387, 398.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is

VOL. CXCIX-20

Affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

199 U. S.

CALIFORNIA REDUCTION COMPANY . SANITARY REDUCTION WORKS.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT.

No. 25. Argued October 26, 27, 1905.-Decided November 27, 1905.

The Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco have full authority under the constitution and laws of the State of California to make and enforce within that city and county all such reasonable sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with any general statute or with the constitution, and which have for their object the preservation of the public health by whatever cause endangered. Where the power of the authorities to grant privileges to be exercised for public benefit is not limited by law in that respect the duration of the period for which the privilege is granted is a matter in their discretion to be determined on grounds of public policy, and, even if such privileges ought not be granted for long periods, the courts cannot declare a grant void merely on that ground. Where a regulation enacted by competent public authority for the protection of the public health has a real, substantial relation to that object the courts will not strike it down on grounds of public policy or expediency. Where the basis of the claim is that an ordinance is unconstitutional as taking private property for public use without compensation, the claim must be made by one whose property is taken, and it cannot be raised on his behalf by others whose property is not taken. An ordinance of competent municipal authorities based upon reasonable grounds for the cremation of garbage and refuse at a designated place as a means for the protection of the public health is not a taking of private property for public use without compensation within the meaning of the Federal Constitution even though such garbage and refuse may have some elements of value for certain purposes.

The exclusive privilege granted to one company by the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco to dispose of the garbage in the city and county of San Francisco held not to be void as taking the property of householders for public use without compensation.

THE Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, by ordinance adopted February 17, 1896, and known

199 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

as Order No. 2965, granted to F. E. Sharon, his associates and assigns, the sole and exclusive right and privilege, for a term of fifty years, to cremate and destroy within that city and county, by crematories or by a process of reduction, house refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders, sludge, crockery, tins, bones and other like matter, dead animals (not provided for by contract or franchise theretofore granted), putrid vegetable matter, fish, flesh and food condemned by the Board of Health of the city and county as unfit for human food-the grantees, their associates and assigns, having the right to charge and collect therefor not exceeding the sum of twenty cents per load.

The grantees, their associates and assigns, were required to have in operation, within two years after the granting of the above privilege or franchise, a suitable building or buildings, with necessary crematories, machinery, tools and appliances necessary to cremate and destroy by cremation, or by a process of reduction, all obnoxious germs and elements contained in house refuse, and other substances above mentioned -the works to be such as would suffice for the cremation or reduction of at least three hundred tons per day of such sub

stances.

By the same ordinance it was made unlawful, after erection of such works, for any person or corporation to remove through the public streets from any houses, hotels, markets, hospitals, factories, restaurants, stores or other like building or place, in the city and county, any of the substances above specified, except in closed vehicles and wagons constructed so as to conceal the contents from public view, and to effectually prevent any smell escaping therefrom, as well as to prevent the dropping of any portion of such material or substances on the public streets-such vehicles and wagons to be constructed in accordance with specifications approved by the Board of Health of the city and county.

The ordinance also made it unlawful, after the buildings referred to had been constructed, for any person or corporation

to dump or place upon any land, water or waterways within the city and county, any such substances, and required that they should be forthwith delivered to the above crematory, and there, at the expense of the person or corporation so conveying the same, be cremated or destroyed or subjected to such disposition and treatment as will at once secure and effect a complete combustion of all gases and odors arising therefrom."

The grantees, their associates and assigns, were required, within twenty-four hours after receiving any of the material or substances above specified, to "cremate or reduce the same, or subject the same to such process as will secure the complete combustion of all gases or odors arising therefrom," and to maintain and operate their plant and crematories, or other apparatus, "so as to prevent any obnoxious smells or gases being emitted either from the deposits of such matter or substances on their premises, or from the process of cremation or other treatment thereof, or from the residuum remaining after cremation or treatment as aforesaid; also, that in the operation of said works no smoke or soot shall be emitted so as to constitute a nuisance."

The ordinance further provided that the grantees, their associates and assigns, should, from and after December 1, 1902, have the sole and exclusive right and privilege, during the remainder of the term of their franchise, "to remove and dispose of all dogs killed at the public pound, and all animals impounded and not redeemed by the owners thereof, and which are valueless and cannot be sold; also, to remove and dispose of the carcasses of all dead animals in said city and county not slain for human food, which shall not be removed and disposed of by the owners thereof, so as not to become a nuisance, within six hours after the death of the same."

It was further provided that the grantees, their associates and assigns, should be subject to all health and sanitary regulations in force during the existence of said franchises; and should receive no compensation whatever from the city and