Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1889-05-23

10 Empower tu6m ny ViTtuC VI VIC cpCCioi
pro visions comforting express power in
the specified cases, to legislate upon those
sub jects under the limitations prescribed,
ano by virtue of the general clause, upon
all other matters coming within the scope
of their municipal authority"
Dillon on the municipal corporations
vol 1, Sec. $50 second edition. lays
down the rulc as follows: When there
are both special and general provisions
the power to pass bylaws under the
special or express grant can only exer>
cistd in the cases and to the extent as
respects those matters allowed by the
charter or Incorporating act; and the
power to pass by~laws under the general
clause does not enlarge or annul the
power conferred by the special provis-
ions in relation to their various subject
matters but gives authority to pass by
laws reasonable in their character. upon
all other matters within the scope of
Their municipal authority. See also city
of Cairo vs. Brois 1O1, ILL.,, ATS. Under
these authorities which we regard as de
claling the correct rule on the subject,
we do not think that section 70 relied
upon enlarged the powers conferred by
the special provisions.
| We have referred in the argument to
| the slaughter house cases" so>called.
10 Wallace SO as an authority sustaining
the ordinance in question. From an ex-
animation of the case cited it appears
thai in 1859 the legislature of the state
of Louisiana passed an act to protect the
health of the city of New Orleans TO To-
cate the stock landings and slaughter
houses and to incorporate the Crescent
City Live Stock Lsrding & Slaughter
House Company" under the act all ami
mails intended to be slaughtered were re-
quired to be inspected and slaughtered
at the company's slaughter house. and all
other slaughter houses within the city
were required to be closed. The validity
OF the act was called in question, mainly
on he ground that the legislature had no
power to pass it, but the supreme court
of the United States held that the legis-
| latu re had the power. and that the power
was properly exercised. But the de-
cision has no bearing on the question in.
volyed in this record. The question here
IS not what power the legislature has
over the subject or what power it may
exercise; but the question is whether
the legislature has conferred the power
on Incorporated towns and villages Or
gained under the general incorporation
act. We entertain no doubt but the
legislature has ample power to authorize
an incorporated town TO establish and
maj ntain an abattoir il it saw proper by
appropriate legislation to do so; but
whether that power has been conferred
presents entirely different question,
ano one upon which the case cited has
no bearing. The legislature in the ex-
ere sc of its legislative powers is uDre-
strained except so far as limitations
have been prescribed by the constltu-
ton Of the United States or of the state,
while on the other hand, municipality
can only exercise such powers as have
been delegated to it by the legislature
The city of Milwaukee VS. Gross 81
Wis. 243, is also relied upon as an au.
thority to sustain the ordinance of the
lefty. The ordinance in the case cited
authorized the comptroller Of the city to
procure from the owner of certain
slaughter house in the city the right of
all city butchers to use the slaughter
house free of charge, and all persons
were prohibited from slaughtering ami
| az Guy obuCi piuCC Wituiu thc
city. The question arose as to the
power of the city to pass the ordinance
and it was held that the city had no
power. But upon an examination OF
the case it will be f5dnd that the stat
ute under which the city acted was
much broader than our statute One
clause of the act conferred the power
''to direct the location and management
OF slaughter houses and markets" Un-
der this and other provisions it was
said these provisions of the charter
give the common council ample au-
thority to establish city slaughter
houses and regulate the management
the reof." There is such distintion be
tween the power conferred in the case
cited and our general incorporation act
that we do not regard the case as an
authority; besides the ordinance passed
in the case cited is very different from
the ordinance involved here.
Under paragraphs SO and "a of our
incorporation act heretofore cited we
think power is conferred upon incorpora-
ted towns to prohibit slaughter houses or
any uuwholesome business or establish
ment within the incorporation. And the
common council of the town by appro-
pirate ordinance may regulate the loca-
ton of any unwholesome business. and
they may cleanse, abate or remove the
same. But, such power does not au-
thorize the passage of an ordinance like
the one in question.
The Judgment of the appellate court
vii be reversed and that of the circuit
court affirmed.
There seems to be but one point cons
sidered by the supreme court and upon
thai the decision is rendered. 1t is the
power or lack of power vested in the city
to maintain and operate public sbattoir,
and the highest legal authority of the state
holds that the city is not clothed with
sucl power. The friends of the abattoil
claimed that the state had the authority
to take such precautions and took the
ground that the Legislature having that
power in ITSELF gave the same to the
cities. This is the point of difference
between the supreme and the appellate
courts, for while the former acknowl-
edges the legislative rights, it denies
tina the jurisdiction in such cases ex-
tends to cities.
| The supreme courts ruling upholds
Judge Glenn's ruling in all points and is
therefore very complimentary to tina,
gentleman.
A Sea Sick Passenger
On the ocean cares little about a storm
He is positively indifferent whether he is
was he'd overheard or not. But. set RICH,
by wine glassful or two of Hostetter's