Municipal Ordinances—Repeal by Implication—Dog Ordinance— License Tax on Business.—A municipal ordinance licensing and regulating the ownership of dogs within the limits of a city is not inconsistent with a later ordinance the purpose of which is to license for revenue and regulation every kind of business carried on within the city, and the former ordinance is not repealed by implication by the latter.

Id.—Grant op Police Power by Political Code.—Such dog ordinance is not repealed by implication by the provision in section 3366 of the Political Code as amended in 1901, authorizing supervisors of counties and legislative bodies of cities and towns, in the exercise of police power, and for regulation, to license every kind of business within their limits.

Id.—Grant of Police Power by Constitution.—Counties, cities and towns are not required to look to any legislative enactment for the source of their police power; but the constitution has by direct grant, in section 11 of article XI thereof, vested in them plenary power to establish and enforce such police, sanitary and other local regulations as they may determine necessary for the welfare of their inhabitants, which do not conflict with general laws. The legislature cannot limit the exercise of this power so long as it does not conflict with any general law of the state.

Id.—Dog Ordinance a Proper Exercise of Police Power—Reasonableness.—Held, that the provisions of the dog ordinance in question are not unreasonable, uncertain, or ambiguous in terms, nor oppressively burdensome; but that it represents only a wholesome and salutary exercise of the police power. The owner of the dog is fully protected, if he procures the license and complies with the law, nor can it be presumed that the marshal will commit infractions of the law.

Id.—License Tax on Dogs—Incident to Management and Control— Penalty—Police Power.—A license tax on dogs may be imposed as an incident of the regulation of their management, control or use. An ordinance providing that the owner of the dog upon the payment. of the required license tax shall attach to the collar worn by the dog a seal or device as evidence of the ownership of the dog, and of the payment of the license tax, and providing for the enforcement of a penalty for noncomplianee with the law, and also for the destruction of dogs which bear no collar as required, is an exercise of the police, and not of the taxing, power.

Id.—Police Power not Dependent on Ownership of Dogs.—The exercise of the police power to regulate the management and control of dogs, within city limits does not depend upon the question whether dogs are full property in this state or not, where they are allowed to run at large within such limits. An ordinance regulating the use and management of dogs within city limits does not restrict or interfere with their ownership, if the owner complies with the ordinance. It only involves the familiar principle that every person must so use his property as not to injure the rights of other persons or of the public.