Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1886-11-20
ANENT THE ABATTOIR.
Opinion of the Public and of the Bar,
on Judge Glenn's Decision.

the strength of the following, which Is
taken from his ruling:
On the eighteenth day of December,
1865, the city council of the city of Chi
cago passed an ordinance which provided
that all the slaughtering of animals for
CITY consumption should be done on a
particular lot, at the establishment of a
particular firm, except that done at the
regular packing houses for packing purs
poses. This ordinance provided for the
erection of good, ample and complete
buildings and yards. with the necessary
conveniences, fixtures and arrangements,
including hot and cold water, gas hight,
etc, for slaughtering and taking care of
animals 1t also conferred the right OF
all butchers to take their animals to that
place and slaughter them therein. 1t
also provided for furnishing the several
butchers with division or portion of the
building, etc. The ordinance further
provided that the firm owning the estab
lishment should keep the buildings,
yards and premises in good condition,
and remove the filth, etc, thereforeirom,
as they may be required by ordinance.
There was an additional provision that
the firm should receive as compensation
for the use of their establishment the
usual offal of the animals slaughtered
therein by the several butchers and no
more. The establishment was to be kept
open at all times to the inspection of the
city health officer or any of his deputies.
This ordinance provided that no other
slaughtering establishment OF establish
ments should be suffered or permitted
within the city limits, nor should any
Strengthening by butchers or others be
suffered or permitted except as provided
in this ordinance. under penalty of not
less than twenty five dollars or exceeding
one hundred dollars for each and every
offence. This ordinance was held by the
supr eme court of the state in the case of
the city of Chicago VS. Rumptf, 40 III 81.
to be void, because it was unreasonable,
oppressive and tended to create mon
oply.
The decision of Judge Glenn is dis
appointment to the majority of the people
of Rock Island, and is not at all popular
with the general public. But it is emln
ent authority on the legal situation of the
matter. nevertheless. With a view, how
ever, of gaining the opinions of members
of the bar on the subject a number of
attorneys were interviewed this morning.
with the following result:
Z. E Parmenter: Il have not looked
up the law. but think the tendency of
the court is to hold that cities have author
ity 20 regulate such institutions. | hardly
think the Chicago case on which Judge
Glenn bases his decision, hits this case,
as i: is a private enterprise while this
public. The progressive idea OF the
court is to give cities the authority to
regulate sanitary affairs. / think the
supreme court would reverse Judge
Glenn's decision.
Adair Peasants: mo lawyer can give
an opinion of any value until he has
weighed the arguments of lawyers on
both sides, as Judge Glenn has. The
main question in the case is one about
which the best legal minds might honest-
" differ the question as to the power of
the city to do what it has tried to do is
pure question of law, and it is my opinion
that Judge Glenn, having examined the
authorities on both sides, is probably
right There should be no feelings in
volved in the matter, as DR.. Craigs mos
tives are the best. and all good citizens
should hold up his hands in his efforts to
better the sanitary condition of the city"
E W. Hurst: I do not believe that the
opinion of any lawyer who had made but
a curSory examination Of an important
question like this. upon which the best
legal minds differ, should be given much
weight as against the opinion of those
vino had spent much time and study upon
the question. aud as Judge Glenn had un-
doubleday carefully examined the ques-
ton before rendering his decision, | am
inclined to think his decision was right
ard would be sustained. That the ques>
ton was one upon which the highest
authorities differed however, is shown by
Judge Glenn's decision, in which he cites
the fact that the supreme court of
Wisconsin and the supreme court of the
United States have announced a doctrine
at variance with his decision, Judge
Glenn decision being based principally
upon tb4decision of our supreme court
in the case of the city Of Chicago VS.
Rumpff."
Jos. L. Haas: Il think the decision of
Judge Glenn will be reversed, if it is tax
en- to the supreme court of the state. He
evidently bases the decision arrived at, on
the case of the city of Chicago VS.
RumpG. which, though similar, is not
like the case in question as there is no
attempt to institute a monopoly here.
believe the supreme court will reverse
Judge Glenn's decision. on the ground
that the city has right to adopt sanitary
measures of such nature"
Mai. II. c. Connolly: Il think that
the city should have the right to reg
ulale matters of this kind on general
principles Its delicate matter for me
to analyze Judge Glenn's decision after
his thorough study of the case, and pre-
sumption on my part, to criticise his de-
cision. ! think, however, that the case
should not stop here; that it should go up
to a higher court"
Sol Curtis, Maj Beardsley, Messrs j.
L Kenwortby and Oliver Olsen were in
terrogated, but declined to give opinions
on the ground that they had not given