Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-01-10

prior 70 tne passage Oh lnt oruilauSc onu
erection of the abattolr, the city was sup
piled with fresh meats by about fittee n
licensed butchers, all of whom did the ir
Strengthening at some i've slaughterin g
houses located In the city, and those
houses were kept In a most filthy condi-
ton, occasioned somewhat from the want
OF drainage, which. on account OF their
location away from the river. could not
be remedied, and somewhat on account
of the carelessness of the butchers and
keepers of the slaughter houses Be-
sides this. some of the butchers were I'M
principled enough to sell diseased meat,
aud meat in such condition that no civl
lized person would knowingly eat. The
city was of the opinion after making the
effort, that this evil could not be con-
trolled by the ordinary ordinance with
only penalty attached. And deter
mined as part of the remedy TO build
the abattoir. but while this was being
proceeded with the butchers removed
their place of Strengthening, the beeves and
other animals outside the city limits and
more than one mile therefrom so that the
city hsd no jurisdiction of the slaughter
house and could not inspect the animals
before killing could only inspect the
meat after it was brought into the city.
The ordinance was passed after the butch
ers had moved their place Of butchering
outside the city or in view OF the fact
that they were about to so move. 1t was
AS important for the city to inspect the
animals before they were slaughtered as
the meat afterwards, and that the ordl-
nance provided for. The city already
had the building which it is not disputed
it will hold. Ali that was wanted was
some butchering appliances amounting in
cost TO something like s., 5S5, the inspec-
tor would be required at all events. 1t
ppears that the abattoir is well located
for butchering purposes-and is right on
the banks of the Mississippi river, which
gives good drainage.
If the animals were compelled to be
brought there for inspection it would not
be unreasonable to suppose that the
butchers would be willing to have their
work done there instead of at Dingle-
dimes, which was far outside the city
limits The ordinance did not compel
any of the butchering to be done at The
abattOir, only the inspection there or at
some other licensed slaughtering house
in the city of which there was only one
in existence; but we are authorized to
suppose that there might have been
others if any one had seen proper to
establish them. AT least no refusal on
the part of the city is shown. If this be
so there was no monopoly established by
the city even if the city could establish n
monopoly where it did the work itself,
which we need not decide. Where q
city has power to regulate certain matters
of police within its limits in carrying out
| the details of that power it must neces-
ssrily have a large discretion and an or-
din4nce should not be declared void for
| unreasonableness unless clearly so in the
mind of the court. Eagan VS. City of
Chicago Brad. 10.
The next question arising is under the
general health clause of the statute.
Had the city the power to pass the or
| dinance and maintain the abattoirf Ii
seems that the issue was made and the
| Case tried and decided in the court below
| as though the abattoir had been estab-
| lished and all the butchering was
| auired to be done there or that the Or
dinance under all the circumstances had
such coercive features in that direction
| that it amounted to that, and the city
was enjOined from passing an ordinance
requiring the butchering to be done at
the abattor. That the general health
| clause is broad enough to authorize the
| city TO regulate the slaughter houses
| in the city to reasonable extent seems
to be the effect of the reasoning of the
court in the case of Tugman VS. City of
Chicago 70 I'll. 405. Clause IS, above
cited, seems to be residuary in character,
| intended to cover every case for the gems
eral preservation of the health of cities
not specifically delegated and is not con-
trolled by the specific grants of power
| enumerated in the other sections, What
the CT ty may do to preserve health must
necessarily be within the sound discre-
ton of the city council, controlled in the
end by the courts and liable TO be de-
clared void for pal pable abuse.
| The city council had been informed
through an investigation of it's board of
health of certain facts found to exist at
the slaughter houses and through it the
| opinion of nine leading physicians of the
city, that the public health was being en-
dangered by the condition of things ex-
isting at the slaughter houses in the city.
The physicians resolved THAT the meat
exposed to air rendered poisonous by the
septic emanations from the decomposiug
mental to those who eat it; that the meat
of hogs fattened on any animal matter
and especially that in state of decompo-
stion is unfit for human consumption
and where used will surely breed diseases
that the meat from diseased cattle and
immature calves is inedible and its ex
posture for sale crime against the health
of the community"
T. a.; 90 a., hot I,a
pellant was attempting to remedy. What
more natural and efficient remedy could
be devised than to build an abattoir
where all the slaughtering could be done
by the city and where the deputy health
commissioners could inspect the animals
before slaughter, as well as the meat af-
forwards. 1t is not denied, but admitted
by counsel for the appellee that the legis-
lature could by express grant give the
citizens in this state the right to maintain
an abattoir like this one, but it is insisted
that it has not done so and that such
power cannot be inferred from clause IS
above cited.
1t is claimed that Under the rule an
nounced in the case of Chicago VS.
Rumpff As Ill. 81, the city would not have
the power to pass the ordinance in ques-
ton nor maintain the abattoir for the
reason that the ordinance would create u
monopoly. Under the general law the
city can do all acts and make all regula-
tons which may be necessary or expedi>
ent for the promotion of health and the
suppression of disease" In the Chicago
charter recited in Chicago VS. Rumpff
supra, the power was"t direct the loca~
ton, management, construction of, and
to regulate, license, restrain. abate and
prohibit, within the city limits slaughter