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

The court also fouod il Illegal TO con-
fine the business TO one building or TO
give II to one individuals. such a regula-
ton was not contemplated by the act anu
created monopoly, and the principle OF
the equality of rights Of corporators was
violated. The opinion further states that
the city did not proceed on the assump-
ton that the butchering OF animals was
a nuisance. We think that case distin>
puishable from the one at bar in impor-
tant particulars In this case the whole
object OF the ordinance as is declared in
section No. 2, was TO secure TO the city
good, fresh. wholesome meat" That is
to preserve the health of the city. This
was aimed to be accomplished by secur-
ing good inspection of the animals and
nests, and by keeping clean slaughter
house SO that the meats should not be-
come contaminated by contact with i'm
pure gasses and filth The health OF the
people of the city was the main object.
In the Chicago case as held by the
court, there seemed to be no object in
view except that of giving Reed Il Co.
monopoly of the business of slaughtering
the animals. The ordinance or contract
was void as an ordinance for want of be-
ing properly passed, or even If passed. 1t
would have been void as decided by the
supreme court But surely the supreme
court did not intend to decide that under
a statute like our present broad charter
to cities that the common council cannot
maintain an abattor like the one estab-
llshed by appellant for the purpose of
preserving life and health and OF prevent
ing unscrupuous butchers from poisou>
l.. hy
and unwholesome meat. The supposed
great damage done the public welfare by
the claimed establishment of monopoly
of the butchering business by the city of
Rock Island lis the main point relied up
on by counsel to establish the unrefsona'
bleness of the ordinance. But it seems
to us that such considerations must sink
into insignificance when we consider the
over whelming benefits to be derived by
the same community in the preservation
of its health by clean and wholesome
meat supply. The one only touches the
pocket, the other the life and health.
The slaughtering Of the cattle by the city
is only an incident necessary to accom-
pish the more important object Of con>
serving the public health. Individual
rights must Weld to the public good.
Such an ordinance could be no prece dent
for the establishment of dangerous
monopoly in the future,
TIE city only charges for the butcher
ing the necessary expense. Any unrea.
| sonable charges might make an ordinance
void. But under the present ordinance,
there is no compulsion. This view of
the subject has been taken by other
courts eminenti in ability and the doctrine
announced agrees with our views. The
cases referred to are, The City of Mil
waukee VS. Gross 81 Wis. 243. The New
Orleans slaughter house cases 10 Wal 80
| Holding also that the Rumpff case supra
is not in conflict, we feel free to hold that
the city of Rock Island has not exceeded
its chartered power in passing the ordi-
nance in question and in maintaining the
abattoir. Taking this view of the sub
| ject, we hold that the court below erred
in making the injunction perpetual and
decreeing costs against appellant. The
decree of the court is therefore reversed
aud the cause remanded to that court
| with instructions to dismiss the bill.