The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1890-04-10
AS We Expeoted.
JUDGE r. w. HUGHES pRoNoUNoEs THE MEAT
LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

proceedings in the United States Cir
cult Court at Richmond:
Mr.. William Rebman, agent for Armour & Co.
at Norfolk, Va, arrested in that city some
weeks ago for violating the State law by selling
beef Which had been slaughtered a distance OF
one hundred miles from the place where il was
offered for sale without the same having been
inspected.
MIR. tiebnan was fined and he refused to nav
the same; whereupon he was sent to Jail in de
fault. The counsel for tebman applied to Judge
Robert w. Hughes for writ of hdbeas corpus
before Judge Hughes at Norfolk last Tuesday biz
Armour'S attorney and Acknowledgement Scott
Today Judge iiugheS IN the United States
The Court, after citing the authorities and law
bearing on this case, said
Upon the authorities and case thus presented
| am to say whether or not the Virginia act to
prevent the sale of unwhoesome meat is con
sttutonal and has precedence as an inspection
law over constitutional provisions for securing
freedom of trade between the States.
it is undeniable that a State of this Union, like
10 enact inspection laws for the public safety
1t has clear right to this power it has to ex
laws adopted to secure the public safety, even
though they trench upon and more or less OBJ
sJruct the freedom of trade between the States.
1t is equally true, however, that inspection
laws, to be Within the sovereign prerogative of
the State and to stand superiorto cardinal provis-
ions of the national Constitution, must be essen
italy and really such in character, purpose and
operation TO call a law an inspection law does
not make it one. It must be an inspection law
i'll spirit and in truth in order that its character
as such shall be respected. And even though it
be in its essence and design an inspection law,
yet in order that it may be SubOrdinated to tile
provision OF the Constitution establishing the
freedom of Interstate commerce, it must be a
reasonable law properly devised for prevent
ing the evil at which il is aimed-so devised as to
no more than eifectuate that purpose, aud as
not to subsefye other objects unessentia to the
public safety. When they are abused for these
latter ends and thereby affect foreign commerce
or trade between the States, it is competent for
the national courts, it is made our, solemn Gu-
their enforcement.
The trainers of the Constitution indicated their
apprehension of the abuses of which State i'll
spection laws would be susceptible, and OF the
necessity OF subjecting them TO stringent lmi-s
tation, in the remarkable clause 2, of section 10,
of article |, Of that instrument, i'll hich giving
the States power to impose inspection charges
upon foreign commerce. they required that pre-
vous leaves should be obtained from Congress
to impose them; that the laws when passed
should be subject to congressional revision and
control; that the moneys arising from such
charges should be paid into the national treas
ury. and that the charges should be only such as
were absolutely necessary for executing the
inspection. They gave no such express power
in respect to inspection charges upon commerce
between the States: an omission which implies
that they Intentionally Withheld it, Erpfesso
ltlliuS eCclatsi0 ulteriuS But whether intending
or not, their rule for inspection charges was
absolute necessity" The Supreme Court rule
for inspection charges upon inter state com
merce we have seen to be milder i'll requiring
only that they be reasonable"
And so it seems tom me the question at law is re
solved into the inquiry whether or not the meat
Inspection law OF Virginia IS reasonable ana
necessary, is directed against a dangerous evil,
has eye single to the prevention OF that evil,
and providing for the prevention in a manner
less injurious to the constitutional rights of cti
of sister States than any other that
could be devised. True, preliminary inquiry
is whether this case is within the cognizance OF
this court The act not only forbds the
sale here before inspection of fresh beef, veal
and mutton slaughtered in other States, but for
bids them from being offered for sale until after
the inspection is had and paid for. 1t attaches
the meat before it becomes mingled with the
general properly of the State and while it is vet
an article of commerce between the States; and
requires its inspection and subjects it to the in
Spection charge while it remains distinctly a
commodity of Interstate commerce. In this
respect such law is emphatically condemned
by Chief Justice Marshall in Ward VS.. Maryland,
i'll the language already given For this reason
il there were no other, this court may take cOgn
lance of the case and doing So the first inquiry
is whether the law was necessary to the public
health and safety. This is not asserted by the
act itself, and Is in no way shown dltnnde.- On
the contrary it is matter of common knowl-
edge, that though dried canned and cooked
meats may, while on the markets, contract ele
mentS of poison or decay not detachable by con-
SumerS; yet, that fresh meats, when unSound.
reveal the fact in a manner so obvious to the
senses, that purchasers seldom if ever de-
rule is in the case of fresh pork, and although
raw pork is i'll some instances VIGOROUSLY dan
gefous from an insect invisible to the naked
eye, yet the Virginia law fails to embrace this,
the only species of fresh meat really threaten
ing to the public health, among its subjects Of
inspection. The law does not assert that I'M
sound meats are certainly sold in the State. 1t
simply expresses a belief that those meats are
sometimes offered for sale Surely no public
emergency, no prevalent epidemic, no general
danger existed to render a law absolutely nee
essary or at all necessary such as had never be-
fore been passed in the history of the Common
wealth.
This law does not purport on its face to have
been necessary to the public safety, and am of
opinion that it was not so. BUT even if it were
is it reasonable and appropriate in its provis-
to twenty i've per cont. on the value OF an arti-
Gle for mere inspection is unreasonable and
probably unprecedented We are familiar with
the imposition of as heavy duties on articles of
foreign Importation for the purpose OF protect
ing home articles of the same classes from com
petition; but such charges are unknown to in
spection laws and foreign to the legitimate OBJ
ject of such laws. TO impose a charge OF 20 to
% per cent. on Instantly slaughtered fresh meats.
sold i'll competition with meats slaughtered at
home, upon which no charge is imposed. is tan
tanount to a prohibition of the sale of the COM
mercial meats. An inspection law may prohibit
the Introduction of deleterions articles alto
gether, alcoholic Spirits fol Instance; but if adj
uniting articles of general trade any charge
upon them for inspection, beyond the cost of
executing il, is foreign to the rghtful function
and office Of inspection laws. The heavy charge
imposed by tue Law nndeE consideration itself
suggests that its real purpose was prohibition,
and 1t is difficult to believe that such was not its
purpose. II so, applying as it does to an all inn
portant, and what has become an Indispensable
article of commerce between the States, it is in
valid. Reasonable inspection charges are not
objectionable or Illegal i'll their relation to gen
erai commerce, but when the power to impose
them is abused to the purpose OF destroying
trade. they become unconstitutional Medicine
JuGiciouSiy administered cures the patient but
when the practitioners give 1t in dose to de
stroy life, he commits capital crime. Prohibi-
ton of trade is destruction of trade, and where
prohibitive inspection laws, ii such anomalies
can be, destroy trade between the States in any
commodity Of commerce, they violate the Con
stitntion of the United States, and subvert one
OF the most important objects for which the
States i'll mutual good faith adopted that instlu-
ment.
imposed by this law is not prohibltiYe, still lt
it may be asked if the. burden imposed is not
unreasonable. Surely il ought not to cost the
owner of distantly butehered fresh meats twice
as much to have them inspected as to have
them transported in expensive cans on rail
road express trains nearly half way across
the continent. Surely an inspection ser
vice, OF less than an hour, rendered without
labor. by eye and nostfil only. ought to be rem
dfed for q less compensation than Sl65. Without
entering into further detail, am of opinion that
the burden imposed by this law upon an article
unnecessary. and therefore unconstitutional.
Though it is hardly necessary to do SO, it may
be wen to enquire further whether this is really
an inspection law. Constitutional inspection
laws are these which look only to the public
dents to subserYe those ends than such as are
necessary and proper for the purpose. No
charges which such laws impose are as 60 gen
the expense OF executing the Inspection, and
this expense must not be itself unreasonable
This law OF Virginia far transcends this l1mita-
ton. Half the monies paid Tor inspection are
given to the inspectors, and the other half are
ordered into the State Treasury. On "a years
business, such that OF the last twelve months
in the cities of Richmond and Norfolk alone
this half would produce $25.UN for the public
fSc, if the charge should not destroy the trade.
AS To this half of the revenue arising from the
inspection required what is it but a tax?
know of no better definition of tax than that
it is a burden or charge imposed by legislation
upon persons or property to raise money for
public purposes or for the accomplishment Of
some rightful governmental end. This law
treats the money derived from the owners of
the meats as general public revenue, and
there is no provision declaring or implying that
it is to be used for sanitary or Inspection pur-
poses In terms an inspection law, .l6 IS snl
fact a law taxing for the benefit OF the State
treasury a prime necessary of life. an universal
modify of general commerce. No one will pre-
tend that a tax law which avowedly collects a
revenue for the public treasurer OF State, from
charges laid upon articles Interstate commerce
brought into the State for sale, is constitutional.
Such is the law under consideration, nor can
you change its essential charactar by calling it
an inspection law.
will sign an ORDER for the discharge of the
petitioner.
have had this cause brought into the Circuis
Court, and have heard it-there in order that it
may be taken directly to the supreme court OF
the United States, where 1t will be heard as a
privileged case.
Attorney-General Scott askedNeave to prepare
papers for an appeal to the q. S. Supreme Court,
Which was granted.
Removal of the Farmers Alliance
Cooperative Manufacturing
Company.
The Shenandoah Fu7Zeu Dublished at