Daily Republican., 1884-02-25
FOURTH EDITION.
MUNICIPAL COURT.

UuNlCIRAL COUBT.
Mr. BIRD Argues tho Market Ordi
nance. .
At the session of Municipal Co urt
his morning City Solicitor II. G. Tur'
ner filed informations against Isaac
Fredd, Theodore Hamilton and Will
liam Pratt, for violating the market
ordinance, by selling meat on the curb
stone market on February 2nd last
which was not fattened or slaughtered
at their premises. The first case called
was that Of Isaac Fredd. Levi G. Bird
Esq, appeared for Fredd and City So.
licitor Turner for the city.
Both counsel admitted that Fredd
was q farmer and sold the meat which
was not slaughtered or fattened by him,
and further that they had agreed that
one butcher in Wilmington slaughters
all the cattle for the other butchers, and
IL v as their intention TO prove whether
or not the ordinance was valid one.
Accordingly Mr.. Bird made motion
to quash the information for the reason
that the ordinance was contrary to the
spirit of the constitution OF the State OF
Delaware and tho constitution Of the
United States. In opening his argu-
ment Mr.. Bird spoke Of the butchers
imposing on the people in the exhorbi-
tant price of meat and that the ordi-
nance was solely Tor their benefit, also
that the part in reference to farmers or
SINNERS was only put in as blind and
that the ordinance was passed In the
interest of the butchers. Quo:ed section
ID of the ordinance o the effect that all
meat sold by farmers in the market
must be iattened and slaughtered on his
own premises. etc, together with the
discrimination between King and Madi-
son streets markets.
1.-The power OF City Council to pass
AN ordinance, is given by the Legisla.
ture," said Mr.. Bird, land shall ar
que the case rs though 1t was law
passed by the Legislature.
He contended that the Legislature
had no power to pass such law unless
it was for the benefit of police regula-
tions, with regard to health or public
morals. Thought there was just as
much reason in saying that man born
in Kent County should not practice law
on King street, or an lrishman born in
Ireland, should not conduct blacksmith.
ing in this city above Fourth street, as
/. was to say that farmer should not
sell meat on that street Thought
the case a parlel one, and did not
think the Legislature had any right to
pass such an arbitrary law. Thought
If the Legislature had a right to pass
such law, they had the same right TO
discriminate against lawyers, mechan.
les and others, born in another county
or State, from doing business in this
city.
The case is just the same. He spoke
of depriving the people Of their liberty
by passing such law, which was not
done with a view of aiding police regu.
lations, TO promote the health Of the
city, etc. After reading COoley's au-
thority on the subject OF constitutional
law, he stated that such law now in
force was deprivipg these men OF their
liberty. Wanted TO know if City Coun-
Gil controlled King street market. He
thought that individuals on that
thoroughfare had the right to say
whether or not farmers should back
their wagons up against their private
pavements. Thought tie whole ordi.
nance an unlawful one, but he only
passed it incidentally and put it in for
what 1t was worth.
Another point advanced was that it
was contrary to the spirit Of tue first
section of the li'i. Amendment Of the
Consti, ltiOn Of the United States, where
a law is passed discriminating against
certain persons. Claimed that this law
was abridging the privileges and rights |
of citizens of the United States; that il |
deprived them Of l.berty!withouut due
process Of law, and that it deprived
them OF protection from the law. Quo.
ted from 10th Wallace In reference to
slaughter house cases, and cit Il the
case OF sixteen men in New Orleans
who procured a charter for the exclu.
sive RI ght Of slaughtering and selling
cattle in that place. The validity OF
the charter was tested in the Supreme
Court, before Justices Fields, Bradley
and Swayne, and the monopoly was
sustained on the ground of police regu.
lations, but subsequent cases prac-
tically repealed the slaughter house
cases.
At this point the speaker referred to
the monopoly now existing in this city,
where two men do all the slaugtering
and sell the meat to the butchers, who
dispose OF 1t TO the people from the vari.
GUS market houses, and by excluding
the farmer from selling it on the curb, |
they can sell it as high as they s.e fit,
or as low, TO suit their whims, which is |
certainly the biggestmonopoly any town |
ever had. In substantiating his arcu. |
ment Mr.. Bird cited several authorities |
in cases bearing upon the one in ques. |
ton. Mr.. Bird spoke for over two
hours,and closed with an earnest appeal |
to the Judge, not only for the protection
OF his clients, but to decide a question
that was of great benefit to every man,
woman and child in the city of vii.
mington, and that would have tenleu.
cy to wipe out such a disgracefuI ordi-
nance from the city statutes.
1t being nearly l2 o'clock when Mr..
BIRD hhlsttd, and the court room being
disagr-eably cold, il was decided TO
postpone further argument until TO-
morrow morning, when the City Solici.
tor will he heard in the Office of the
Chief Of Police, where the room i. more
comfortable.