Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-04-08

----
invisible 10 the naked eye, yet the Virginia law
falls 90 embrace this the only spccies OF fresh
mcat really threatening 10 tho public hosth
among IT'S subjects OF inspection
UNsouSD MEATS.
This law does not ssert that unsound meats
are certainly sold In fhA State: IL gimpIy ex-
pressos bsifef that such meats are sometimes
offered for sale. surely no pnbllc emergency.
no prevalent epiderotc, no general danger. OF
popular apprehension Of danger existed 70 rem
dor law absolutely Necessary or at all me-
caaaary, such a. hGd never before been !nssed
Ia the history Of the Commonwealth. This aw
does net purport on iis face 10 have been Docos-
sary 70 tho public safety, and / sm Of opinion
that Il was not 40.
- THE ISsPEcTIoS-FEE REASONABLE?
Bat oven u 1t were, Is Il "roasonabl9n aud
that charge Of p % - per cent. tho yGlGe OF
en- article for mere inspection fs unreasonable
1ud probably unprecedented. We are femi'nr
WIN the Imposition OF hesvy duties on articles
oi foreign importation, iaid for the purpose of
Protecting home articles Of tho sGne ciasees
tCM inpelti0D, but such charges are unknown
o inspectIon-isw3. 10 impose charge Of
- n % per cent on disianuy siaughtorod iresh
meats sold In competition with meats siaugh-
tered 81 home, upon which no charge is imposed,
Is tnntamopnt 10 prohibition Of the sale ~ the
CONN crcia' meats. hniuspectien-law may alto
CethuT prohibit the Introduction of deleteriOus
articles alcoholic spirits for instance but II
tcles 81 neral co 0mmcrce arc admitted then
any chnrse upon them for inspection beyond the
cost Of executing 81 ia foreign 20 the righful
function aud Office o! inspectOn-l8Ws
IS PROHIBITION THE PURPOSE?
The heavy charge imposed by the law under
consideration Itself suggests hat it8 real plIr-
pose was prohibition, and II ia dimculi 10 be-
Icge tina such was not ia purpose. II 30, MP
plying ~ 10 docs 20 IN important and what has
become On indispensable article Of commerce
ftaH r "a fgH to- 10 "a "A
Inspection charges are not Objectionable or IL
legal III their relation 70 general commerce; but
when the YoWor to impose them IA abused 20
tie purpOso Of destroying such trade II becomes
unconstitutional MeIic,uo ludiciously admin
istered cures tho pAticnt hut when tho praru-
TONER gives II In dCso 90 destroy He he com
fnit5 capital crime Prohibition Of trade j. d.
structiOn 10 trade, aud when pronlb4iTe inspec-
tou-laws, " such anomalies can be, destroy trade
between the ststos IN any commodity of COM
Tuorce ihcy violate the CONSTITUTION OF mo nit"d
states end subver, one % the most important
objects for which the states in mutual good faith
adopted that instrument
TIE MATTER or UNBEAsONABLESTss.
Even n could be thought tuat the charge i'm
pO'ci by 'iis law is not prOnhiilyo, siill u may
be asked " tho burden imposed ts not unrca-
sOuabio. surely IL olght not to cost tho owner
Of distan.ly- -bujchered irOSh meats twice "a
much 20 nave them Inspected a. TO have them
transported In expensive cara ou railroad e.
press trains nearly half way across tho con;-
mott. surely au inspection service Of less than
IN hour. rendered without labor, py ego aud
n0-ttil only, ought 20 Do rendered Tor less COM
pcr-a't1n tuan Sl'l.
WA9ut en,orlrg into further detail ! am OF
opinion that tne burden imposed by this inspeo-
ton-iHw upon an important article Of trade be-
tween the states is unreasonable, unnOccss sry,
ana therefore unconstitutional.
IsIr REALLY Az Nr,srEcTIoN-LAw?
Though tis hardly necessary to doso, It may
DO well 10 inquire whether this is rosliy an in
sqoctOn-law. constitutional inspection-laws
hrc those which loos only o. the pubic health
HuG welfare. and employ no other o1podienis 70
Subseryc thcSo CnI5, thnu 6Irh ~ are necessary
and proper for the purpO'c. No charges which
such laws impose are es 20 general trade legiti-
mate, but such ~ morely dcff1y ne expense
Of executing the inspection; and MS expense
must NOT DO itseN Unreasonable. Tho law Of
Virginia far traDscend5 tins limitation.
THE rEEs.
Halt tho moneys paid for inspection are given
20 iuspectors, ami tho other half are ordered
into the Sta'e Treasury. Ou a year business
such as that of fhe lat twelve months IN tho tUo
cities OF Norfolk aud Richmond alone this half
would produce i-j.OOO FOR the pnoic tsc. II mo
ctRreo should not destroy me trade. Az TO ibis
hall a. the revenue arising from Jno inspection
required, what b. 10 but "a taXf ] know OF no
hotter definition ~ tax tnau thGti, is burden
imposed 10y leGis.a alton upon persons or pro-
rrrfy 60 raise money for public purposes or Tor
tlc accomplishment Of some rghtfui govern
u.enfl. end. Thus law treats the money derived
f-.n ihc owner ~ thc meats az ctueral pubhc
revenue, and there Is no provision declaring or
Implying that II Is TO be used for sanitary or in
fpocton purposes.
aAxrs FOK TIE BENTrIT or TIE STATE TERA-
sCgY.
I'm terms an inspection law, 10 is in fact a law
taxing for the benefit Of state Trcasurya
rri,Ir necessary ~ life, an universal article Oi
Auwan food, and an important COMMODITY OF
general commerce. No one VIII preleh1 that Is
iaK-law which avowcdly collects q reNenu" lor
the public treasury OF q state from charges
l.l upon Articles Of interstate commerce
bro .eAl into the state for sale Is c2nstitui ionAl.
such s the law under cohalleialioh, nor can you
change it, essential character by calling It Gn
msps -tiOu-aV.
DISCHARGE HIM
! will slgn an order for the discharge OF the
petitioner
have ial ;his causo brought into the Circuit
Count, ana have heard ~ ;here' in order that 10
may le .Ghon dir Ct io inc Suor'uo court o ne
iuItcd s't ,cs, where IL VIII ie heard as priv
legged case.
To AppeqI-Thc Eject.
When the opinion had been read tho
Court was Informed, as lad alrcauy been
understood, lhat an appeal would ho taken,
and Mr.. Hughes indicated desire 10 have
endorsed on the affidavit OF Mr.: ReDman
the reasons why II was cOutcndod thdt II
should not he admitted. The Judge said
itmight be done The admission of TINS
paper. counsel for the appellants think, u
one OF the strongest points upon winch the
case will rest when gotten before the
higher court.
Counsel held q conference Of some length
in the clerks Office and decided upon some
details i'm connection with the appeal.
The .repcctors insist upon having the mat
ter tested in the higher court and tncir
counsel feel hopeful that Judge Hughes
viii be reversed.
The Attorncv-Goneral when asked yes
tcriav as t. the effect of the decision sald
il would not i'm itself stop the inspection
of meat; that an lnluctIon would have TO
be obtained or some other proceeding rad
before this result would be accomplished.
The inspectors. he sand. can SIN bother
the shipper Of meat and have thelr AGENTS
arrested If they refuse to pay the lnspec-
tion-taX unless there IS some further
step taken 10 suspend tho operation
Of the law pending the dotermlnauon.
Practically no meat has been shipped TO
Nlresua I'M the last two weeks At one
time IL was understood that an agreement
would he entered INTO Tor all fees to be
pad INTO bank pending the adjudication
of the questions involved, but 1t now APP
pears that this was never fully cohcuITeu
IN nor put into execution.
HUSTlNGS COURT.
Judge Fitzhugh Presldcs for Judge witt
who is at Old Point.