Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-03-28
THE TEST CASE MADE
ARMOUR'S NORFOLK AGENT ARHto !
ED FOR VIOLATING THE IN
SPECTlON ACT.
Released on Habeas Corpus After SPe""'"s
aNight in Jail-Fscu
I'm the Case.


I'm the Case.
The recently-enacted meat-inspection
law ia TO have its constitutionality passeu
npon by the Supreme Court Of the United
States.
This announcement has been made De-
fore, but IL has peculiar freshness now
as the test case has been made up IN NOT
folk and will be heard in that city next
Tuesday by Judge Hughes on VIII OF
h0beds corpus.
The fact that the arrest had been Inaue
nnd the writ of hoJeds corpus granted was
reported in Yesterdays Dispatch. Inc per
son arrested was Mr.. William Rebman,
Armour IL Co.'s Norfolk manager.
FACTS IN THE CASE
Mr.. Rebman was arrested on Tuesday
charged with selling eighteen pounds OF
Chicago beef without first having the same
inspected. He was found guilty by Justice
Baum, before whom he was taken, ana
fined $50 and costs. Having declined TO
pay the fine Mr. Rebman was sent 70 jan,
where he remained until late Wednesday
afternoon. 1900, u
Wednesday morning Mr.. William Ii:
presented to Judge Hughes petition Tor
n writ of hdboGs corpus for Mr.. Rebman's re-
lease. IL was granted and made returns
BILE before the court on Tuesday next,
April lat. when argument will be heard on
tho various legal questions involved. =,
The Att0rney-General was before the
judge in Richmond and will be present on
behalf Of the State at the hearing OF the
case Tuesday.
While the bill ia being tested the inspec-
tors throughout the State have agreed TO
put the amount of the fees due them IN
bank, the same TO be paid them If the blll
is decided TO be constitutional, and II not
to be returned to Armour e Co.
Mr.. Campbell, Of Illinois, who is the
cOmpany's regular counsel, will be IN Nor
folk to argue the case with Mr.. White
before the court.
NIB. WHITES vTEws.
The Norfolk Vbyiniqn of yesterday says:
in speaking of the case Yesterday after
noon, MIR. White said: You can congratu--
late the community upon the prospect Of
an early construction of this peculiar piece
of legislative work, and hope you may be
able still further to congratulate them
upOn q decision holding II uncOnstitu-
tional. Probably the Legislature has never
passed n law which has received such wide
spread condemnation. 1t is recognized as
aimed directly at what is known as the
Chicago dressed beef although claiming
to be an inspection measure for the pro-
lection Of the public health "
The Petition and Cause of Complaint.
The Norfolk correspondent of tho Dis
patch last night telegraphed tho following:
The petition of William Rebman. agent
of Armour & Co.. fined and imprisoned
and bailed IN hdbeGs corpus IN the meat
inspection case to come before the United
States Court next Tuesday, says IN sub
stance:
ION the 25th of March james II. Bigbie
fled with i. VI. Baum, police justice OF
this city, an affidavit and complaint that
on the 22d Of March one William Rebman
did wroncfully and unlawfully offer for
sale and did sell n certain quantity-to VT.
eighteen pounds of fresh meat, uncured
beef, which said beef was the property OF
Armour e Co., citizens Of the State of Hill
nois, and part of an animal that had been
slaughtered in the State of Illinois, ani
over 100 miles from the city. Of
Norfolk, State of Virginia, and which
fresh meat had not been inspected
nor offered for inspection to oany fresh-meat
inspector or his deputy of the city OF Nor
folk appointed under the laws Of the
State OF Virginia: that at the time and
place aforesaid, when William Rebman Of
fered and sold said beet. the city OF Nor
folk was a CITY of more than $1,000 inhabi-
tants, and said Rebman then and there
knew that the beef aforesaid had
not been inspected as provided by law;
And he further said that at the time and
place aforesaid in and for said city of Nor
FOLK proper fresh-meat inspectors had been
ulyappointedand qualified as provided by
law: and said Rebmgn then and there un-
lawfully and knowingly offered and eX-
posed for sale and sold said beef i'll viola
fion of and contrary tothe statute, against
the peace and dignity of the State OF Viz
gina."
The warrant and action of Police-Justice
Baum in arresting and fning Rebman $50
and the refusal Of hepetitioner to pay the
fine and his commitment 10 lail IS then
recited at length, together with the act OF
the General Assembly to prevent the
selling of unwholesOme meats"
STATEMENTS or FACTS.
The petitioner further shows that at the
time and place charged IN said warrant and
complaint he offered for sale and actually
sold a quantity of fresh uncured beet.
which beef was the part of an animal
slaughtered in the State Of Illinois and
therefrOm carried to the city Of Norfolk,
and was perfectly healthy and in all re-
spects proper and suitable for human food,
but said beef had not been inspected and
approved, nor offered for inspection to any
fresh-mcat inspector or deputy; that said
beef was the property of Armour " Co.. of
the State of Illinois; that at the time Of
the passage of the inspection act
and for a long time prior thereto Armour
4 Co. were engaged in selling fresh meat at
the cities of Norfolk and Richmond,
which fresh meat was from animals
slaughtered in Chicago; that the sand
business of Armour 81 Co. rs dealers IN
fresh meats at the time of the passage Of
said act was very large. amounting on en-
average to not less than $4,000 pounds q
week. and that the same business conduct
ed at said cities in Virginia by other per-
sons or corporations IN Illinois was also
considerable and as large, if not larger,
than Armour q Co.
THE CONTENTION.
The petitioner claims that his restraint
and imDrisOnment are unauthorized and
illegal for the following among other rea-
sons:
First. The said act of the General As
sembly OF Virginia is IN violation of Article
l.. section 7. Of the Constitution OF the
United States, which provides that Con
grcss shall have the power to regulate
commerce among the several States
Second The said act is IN violation OF
Article w., section ., of the Constitution OF
the United States. which provides that the
citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of the
citizens of the several States.
Third. The act aforesaid being IN con
fict with the provisions of the Constitu;
ton of the United States is void, and SAID
Justice of the peace was without Jurlsdlc-
tion IN the case aforesaid.
MANCHESTER NEWS IN BRIEF.
Personal and Other Items of fIntercst from