, 1876-01-26
TucMAN's sLauQH1ER-HousE.


TIE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THAT rk has
Nt0ltr 10 Run IT.
There was prosecution originally lnhtItntad
hBfore poline magistrate by tho City Of oh.
cago to racover FROM Chariea II. Tugmhn pen-
atty Of $40 for tue violation Of regulation OF
ordinance adopted OH tho 12sh Of December,
1871, by tic Board Of Health OF tho City Of
Chicago, which reads ns followas
Thst from md after Tho 1st day Of January. r. p
usl,inlt or soaf factory shall 6e erectsl or put In
operation In any building uot now used fos sucn puf.
o wn oos, @ son e as csy 1 O. s
north Thirty.titth street he soush, Lake Michigan
On tic cast, ind Western avenue on sho west.
Tho cause WAS taken by appeal to tho Criminal
Court OF Cook County, whore the first decision
waa suatainod aud Judgment rendered for Slo.
An appeal vas taken to still higher court, which
has decided tho case contrary to the first rulnse.
a copy of tho decision, delivored By JuBt!co
Craig, reached tho City Attorney. yesterday.
J Tho following is brief abatract Of tho doe'l-
meht:
that lilo n1aughter-houHe tn question had oecn
started, and ilsas tho BlauEhtoring puslnouH WAS
carried on It was also conceded that other
alaughtor-housea wore running within tho pro"
e1rl6od ftn1its at tho sntlo tinse.
TAoro was no dBpnting Of facts; tho only
esGn y ~ no s rsi95a oad Tsa q sa
uns valid or void. The llrst position takon by
the appellant was that tha regulation Was ut-
reasonable mud oppressive. Who're po"or 10
conferred upon tho legislative department Of
municipal corporation to enact by-lRWs and Or
dinanceH for the better government OF lie III,
hsbitnuts Of a municipality. tho body 'ntrasted
with that power, in Its excrolae, oanaot enact o.
duanccs that arc unrcasunablo anu oppressive,
or Huoh "a will create = monopoly
Each uc:nbor OF tho municipal corporation
ia required to slnro tho burdens incident to bueh
organization but nt tho aauo time ~ arc oasl-
tod TO share and Participates equally IN oil hono-
| fits to be lelived from such govefnment. AZ
ordinance, therefore, that would make an aot
! dono by ono ponal. md impose no ponolty Tor
| tho same not doue under like cirptmstnncea up.
on another, could not be sanctioned or sustained,
| because It would DO Unjust aud unreasonable, a.,
| II tho health OF comfort OF tha city dema'dcd
that tie prohibition Of new slnuRhtor'h 'houses
within designated mart Of tho CITY, tho sa,,,c
reason would Buroly domand that old onot
| Bhou Id 10 discontinued. -......-
! II tho Board OF Health had any powcr TO adopt
an ordinance on tho aubjeot the ordinance. 70 be
| Wild, should not discriminate IN favor OF any
citizen, II it prohibited ono from CARRYING Of
tho business that prohibition should extend tt
ali, regardless Of tho tisao tho buslneas may have
been commenced. .
ait may bo seriously questioned vhethcr th'
Legislature hos tho power to confnr tho law
mating power upon body not cnoaan or oloo'ee
by the peoplo. such as tho Board OF ueath.
=" We aro Of opinion t13t tho act Of 1907 dll
not cou(or the power upon the Board Of fcaltl
to adopt the ordinance; but on tho other hand
tho Common Council wAa intEuatod with th'
power to adopt ordinances in relation 70 hu'
upon tue identical subject mattor over Which th
Hoard OF IIoalth assumed 10 net.
1--WE cannot understand how the powel
could at tho Same time exit n tho two bodioa t
| control by ordinance. tie 9uuao th1nE.
two oaunot therefore. belleyo that It wa
tho deaigu OF tho General Assembly to confe
legislative power over this subject both upo1
tic Common Council aud tho Board Of Heath
Wo arc, therefore, OF the oplnlon that no powo
VIA conferred upon tho Board ct Health +
adopt the ordinance IL question. Tho JUDI
| me ut Mil Lo toyCrsed."