The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-05-21

AIter the passage OF the SllV halfway Dill, Ill
the face of the opposition of almost the entire
munity, it may well be doubted whether any
amount of popular remonstrance or expostuaton
would avail TO prevent the consummaton of any
scheme of municipal legislation, however objection
able-having in its favor the evident sympathes
of majority of the City Councilmen. That such
is the common conviction of the futility of all
attempts to defeat the passage of the ordinance
now pending, prohibiting the sale of fresh
slaughtered meats, except in the public market
houses of the city, is made perfectly obvious by
the comparative apathy with which the progress of
that measure through one Branch of the Council
has been viewed, and its probable success in the
other is anticipated. That this apathy is only
apparent, however, and does not arise either
from popular indifference upon the sub ect, from
general acquescence in the wisdom or necessity
of such an ordinances certain the agitation of
the project in former years having always been
attended with considerable excitement, and its de-
feat having been invariably accomplished by the
strength and earnestness of the popular opposition
Then, the newspapers teemed with contro-
versial articles upon both sides of the question:
and the Council was besieged with petitions
and memorials in favor of and against
the passage of the ordinance. Now press
and public are equally silent-and the mat
ter appears to be left altogether, and without re-
serve, to the discretion of the Council. We are
satisfied that but for the general impression that
the decision of that body is foregone conclusion,
this would not be the case. Whatever considera-
tions ofpublic or private convenience and economy
md To 70 tha md
sist the attempts to break up their business,
three and four years ago, exist, with equal weight,
at the present time. Within those three and fonr
years, the city has grown, and the number of per-
sons living at a distance from the market-houses
and dependent upon the green-grocers for a
supply of the necessaries of life, has largely in
creased. The business itself has widely extended
Where there one provision store in this city
then: there are half dozen now. What was then
but an experiment and novelty has become a
matter of daily use and convenience to hundreds
Of families. 1t cannot be doubted that if these
stores suppressed tomorrow, the want of them
would be far more generally and seriously felt in
the community, than if the same thing had been
done, when the interference of the CITY Council
was first solicited for the purpose Apart from the
numerous and respectable body of dealers whose
business is sought to be destroyed there are many
families whose comfort would not only be there
by diminished, but whose expenses of living would
be considerably increased. 1t is not therefore
because the Importance of the matter is not ade-
quately and generally comprehended-or that the
probable action of the Council is not viewed with
suspicion and distrust, that so little has been said
upon the subject, and that Councimen have been
left pretty much at liberty to take their own
course. 1t is simply, as we have suggested, be-
cause of the almost universal conviction of the
utility of any opposition to the passage of
an ordinance which has the support of such strong
political and pecuniary interests as those which
the butchers, for whose benefit it appears to be ex
clusivey intended, well known to have at their
command. The ordinance has already passed the
First Branch, and will probably come up for con-
sideration in the Second if not on Monday, at all
events, in a very few days. 1t is rather with the
view of informing our readers of what is being
DONE than from any expectation of being able to
arrest the progress of the ordinance through the
Councils, that we now call attention to the sub
ject The following is a copy of the ordinance
and of the report of the Joint Standing Committee
on Markets, by whom the ordinance was intro
duced.
The Joint Standing Committee on Markets to whom was
referred the petition Lewis Turner Others asking
the passage of the ordinance prohibiting the sale of fresh
meats in other places than the regular market houses
having considered the and finding that the
has been passed by the Legislature and only waits
approval of the Mayor and City Council beg leave to offer
the accompanying ordinance:
First Branch Second Branch
Geo A Cunningham Thomas Sewall Sr
James Clark. David TAYLOR
An ordinance provide for the approval by the Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore of Act regulating the
sale of fresh meats within the limits of the city.
Whereas the General Assembly of Maryland, at its regu
lar session in 1885, did pass regulating the
provisions of said act makes it necessary for city
approve ofits provisions therefore
Section l. Be it enacted and ordained by the Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore, That the following
the General Assembly of Maryland passed March 10TH
eighteen hundred and ffy-slx, entitled Act to limit
the places for retailing certain articles in the city of Bal
hmore, Here fOHOaUs the act be and the is hereby
approved by the Mayor and City Council Baltimore.
The Act of Assembly referred to in the above
Report, and embodied in the ordinance which is
merely an acceptance and confirmation of its pro-
visions, is chapter 333 of the Laws of 1856, and
is worded as follows:
CHAPTER SO
An Act to limit the places for retailing certain articles in
the city of Baltimore. Passed March TO- 1856.
SEC. l. Be ii enacted by the General Assembly, of Aary
and That it shall not be lawful for person engage
in, conduct the business retailing fresh
slaughtered meats III the city of Baltimore except within
the public market houses thereof and every person
who shall engage in conduct carry the business of
retailing fresh aughtered in said CITY, except in
the public market houses as aforesaid shall be liable for
the hrs offence to penalty of ten dollars, and
succeeding offence to penalty of twenty dollars, said
penalties to be recovered complaint before single
Justice of the Peace in said city, and paid over the
Register of said city, to and for the the same;
ror'ded however that nothing in this act shall be con
strued to prevent farmers from selling their own produce
or meats in the city of Baltimore
SEC And be 1t enacted, That this act shall 90 into
effect from and after the of the passage Eroreo
the same be approved by the Mayor City Council of
the city of Baltimore
The first question which suggests itself upon
an examination of the peculiar language of this
act is whether it is not actually void for incon-
sistency apparent upon its face. In the second
section it is expressly declared that 'this act shall
Ego into effect from and after the date of its pass
cage; Prooided the same be approved by the Mayor
"and City Council of the city of Baltimore" Now,
the limitation in the body of the act ITSELF in the
stringent form of a proviso, of the time when,
and the conditions upon which-if at all, it was
to take effect, of course precludes the possibility
OF its being made operative at any other time or
under any other circumstances. If it did not 90
into effect 'from and after the date of its pass
cage" it may well be questioned whether it
could ever 60 into effect at all-being
expressly excluded by the insertion of those
words, from the category of those acts,
which in the absence of any similar clause, become
operative on the first day of June next after the
adjournment of the Legislature. 1t is equally GER
tain that without the approval of the Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore, the act never could be-
come law and as that approval could not posi-
bly, be given to the act until some time subsequent
to the date of its passage, when if ever, it was to
take effect, it may be doubted whether, under any
circumstances, the statute ever could have become
operative, and whetherit was notvoid from the first
by reason of the manifest absurdity, and inconsiS-
tency of the second section. However that may
be-one thing is certain. The act was not APP
proved by the Mayor and City Council, and never
has been, although more than three years have
elapsed since the date of its passage. Nay, more.
the Mayor and City Council positively refused
to approve OF the act, at the very next session of
the Council succeeding its passage an ordinance
having been introduced for the purpose, and re.
jected; and the question arises whether, granting
the act ever to have possessed any vitality
at all, it was not wholly extinguished
by this action of the Council That body
had its option to approve or reject. 1t made its
election. 1t rejected Can ii, at this day. recall