Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-01-23

streets, says that the right 10 ade aud unlads car
riages upon the highway is subordinate to the
o original right Of passage. An Englsh case wai
cited wherein the Court held that anything that
impsded the free passage of the street. was a nul-
saucO and as suob, to bs abated, Another case
where the defendant kept carriage aud occupied
portion Of the street 10 solicit wait for psssen
ngers, likewise decided. Il was also held that
any person who does an act which Is productive
OF obstruction, Is guilty Of a nuisance, la another
case Of an exhibition In the window Of a
tradcsman, which attracted enough Of crowd
to obsruct the free passage Of foot passengers, 1t
was held that the claims Of private individuals
must give way before the public rights and the
general interests Of community.
HeuCe | say that the public have right 10 the
Streets aud when persons convert street from It's
use as highway and make 1t q market, bazaar,
or place Of business they are guilty OF obstruc-
tlons In such cases it Is the duty Of the muniei-
pal authorities according 20 the statutes, 10 re-
move the obstruction and prevent q repetition
When these occupations have reached the point OF
actual obstruction, it is the power and duty OF the
municipal authorities to interfere and abate the
nuisance. Further; the Council may not wait un-
nl the nuisance has actually arrived, but may pass
precautionary aud preventive measures
claim that the Council has a right to pass or
diuances TO prevent all such distractions rs the
market teams may produce. This is a proper
precautionary power. Il Is claimed that the stat
ute Of the State has taken the over out Of the
nicpal authorities OF taking care Of and keeping
open the public highways.
The statute was passed In 1854. The statute
giving to the Council power TO take charge and
keep open streets aud highways was passed under
the general law Of 1852 and re enacted in 1859.
The statute provides that farmers and producers
shall not be charged toll for standing in the mar
kets, but does authorize toll npon hueksteTs or
frOrF staller.
What are the rights Of parties under this statute
different what they would be under the general
law To guard against the annoyance Of huck
sters and forestalers the Council has the right to
say TO them, you must go TO the place we seectto
sell your goods, and no where else. But the farm
ers and producers may 90 to the market and stand
without charge, and they may also go into the
other streets OF the city and while they are using
it as e highway, il they can incidentally to the
general right and use OF the St. to passage and re-
passage, sell their meats or vegetables then they
shall have right to do it. But this rule must not
interfere with the original use Of the st. as high
| way. He must not occupy the st. as place Of
business. The phraseology Of the act IS tha. he
shall not be charged for standing on the market
| ground, or for selling upon other SITS. This
shows exactly the distinction make in the use
OF the Sts. They must use them for SITS; but il
/ they, while doing this, can make sale, they can
do il without fine II they so make It a place Of
business, the Council may come iD and prevent il.
That eau only be done upon the Central Market
/ Ground where provision has been made from thom
II my reasoning thus far is correct the case
ends, without enquiring into the meaning of the
words farmer or producer. Bat we will 60 farther
and look at those terms. Il seems to me that the
words farmer and producer were Synonymous in
| the minds OF the legislature when this act was
passed. The defendant has been in the habit OF
buying stock, keeping it for a short time and then
selling it.
The chapter from Political ECONOMY, which
was read was upon the production Of loeaLth, and
II we take the reasoning of that work for authority
/ then hOdv in tho world vvho lahora for
wealth, is producer All writers upon political
economy argue that all laboreTs are producers
hence we, not being able to go TO that length, must
! throw them aside entirely. Webster defines pro-
ducer as one who makes, brings into view
brings into being, &c. We can hardly take that asa
definition. | think that the legislators had none
Of these distinctions in view but regarded him as
farmer. And, if we AbsudOu that meaning, we
cannot stop short of the definition that any man
who makes the slightest change in the form OF the
matter he deals with, is producer.
/ From all these propositions, come TO the con-
clusion that the ROlee Bowers Of the city enables
them to prohibit the occupation Of the streets and
highways as places of business or markets.
Mr.. Grannis, for the defence, plead that the
question as to the obstruction Of Streets has little
/ or nothing to do with the case under adyisement
The law is well defined as to the rights Of the
public to streets aud well understood All the
cases referred to as distractions came under the
head Ofnusances, SO that the public were deprived
OF tnelf easement OF the streets. take tDe broad
ground that there is no city in the United States
in which law exists that depTlVes the producer Of
the right Of selling bis prpdHetioBs ppOl any street
at any time provided he does not constitute anui-
sance by obstruction. There is nothing in the act
which refers in any way to the producer, but q
proviso wasput in, as take it to prevent cOrpor
ations from imposing tax upon farmers or pro-
ducers for the sale OF their goods. The legislature
gays no charge or assessment shall be assessed up
on any farmer or producer ior hrnging their srti-
ces Tito the city, or 10 stand and sell them upon
the streets and that the city authorities shall have
no power to prohibit IRON, or to punish for, the
selling by the producers Of his goods or provisions
l apprenend that if the Council had had the power
they would have passed law assessing fines and
penalties upon the producer They had read this
statute and only by th9t were they prevented from
taking proceedings agdinst this class of desers =
But the rights Of producers are above ali enact
ments of Qonn0,
The great question is What Is q producer ~
It has always beer in the power Of city suthOTt es
to pass laws against hucksters and fOTestaler, aud
thie7 provisions are wise and salutary It will not
be claimed that the only kind Of production is nat
ural but the term includes the labor of the me-
ehanic and manufacturer. They by their skill and
labor produce for the good OF man, those articles
which were otherwise useless and Valueless. They
are always Included in the term productive in
dVid1aIs.H The term includes, according 70 gen
ersl aoceptatiop, those who transform raw material
into the article which will be Of service and value
The defendant purchases cattle aud sheep, places
them upon his farm and when required brings them
into market for SALE lie is 20 torestaller or huck
ster, and that is not claimed. By his skill and
labor he has added to the value OF the sheep he
purchased and as such is producer, and it seems
TO me that sll the authorities will sgrte with me
in this view.
The question was raised by the 6ourt that when
man buys sheep aud keeps them on his farm, not
bringing them into market for long time, but
dnolfu hringintr IN ha aala yuh0 io
the producer in such casei
Mr.. Slade, for the defence, (the usual rule being
waived by the prosecutor and the Court, to allow
all the counsel 10 speak to the question: remarked
that there was too much disposition in small way,
in the acts Of legislators who make enaetments
adverse TO the will Of the people. Just so far as
we cheaper the price of food just so far We assist
the great masses who require that food. The
farther from the producer, and consequently the
nearer the consumer we bring the food, the cheap.
or we furnish IT, II is said that the standing Of the
market men upon the streets Is q nuisance II that
is so, then previous Councils have been extremely
/ derelictin their duty The whole question at issue
. is one of power. How much power has our City
: Council In the management of our streets. The
ordinances against the huckster and forestaller are
to cheaper food. The proviso that farmers and
. producers are allowed to sell their provisions
without hne or bindrence, is also to cheaper food
by bringing them in closer connection with the
, consumer. This clause gives the producer power
= 70 sell angWhere a. any lluei anu tuis Is mnOfe'
some provision. The prosecutor says that he can
sell incidentally to any one upon any street, but
suppose be stands at my store five minutes 10 sell
to me, and five minutes more with BALI dozen oil
: my neighbors who came there to buy, why cannot
he stand there for longer timei
The question Of producers does not need further
: discussion. All who are engaged in alteration ol
Z form and place are producers. There being no
limitation Of the time in which the seller must have
the articles in his possession to make him pro-
] ducer, we mH take liberal view of it.
s Ii seems to me that tie Council should be held
, to q strict account and brought promptly to the
D limit Of their powers.
3 AS to the quest on presented by the Court,
think the man who brings the meat to the city is