Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-04-22
TESTING A NEW ACT
The Validity of the Milk Ordi-
nance in Question
ON A CASE FOR A VIOLATION
The Several Provisions of the Ordinance
Inquired Into BY the Dssease-
Of the Prosecution

The case of the city of Grand
Rapids vs. Irving Wood woTk. MAX
dealer, WHICH was on trial in the sn-
perior court yesterday morning and
afternoon, presents features of decided
interest Ia the milk dealers generally
and has an important bearing upon the
legality Of the city ordinance. An
analysis OF the various provisions of
the ordinance shows that the city coun-
Gil requires The board OF health 10 de-
mand OF the dealer IA the city I'M
portAnt conditions with which, IL is
claimed, ne could not comply. One is
that the dealer obtain mglk only from
cows that have been pastured i've
months IN the year. This prerequisite
brings up the question as to whether
the board has any authority To make
farmer pasture Ms cows five months
out of twelve. IL the milk be pure and
the owner OF the cows doesn't comply
With this prerequisite. could the COM
mon council deprive the people Of the
city Of milkf
some or the Duties
The ordinance says that il shall be
ME duty Of the board of health to pro-
sure deputzlng privileges from the
sheriff. Could the board of health ac-
compiish this except by the pleasure OF
the sheriff?
The ordinance provides that the
farmer shall underdrain his stables and
that the floors snail De of sound plank
or hydraulic cement. Also that he
shall build receptacle and conduct
the liquid nanuIes through under
ground pipes and that the solid ma
nures shall be removed from the barn
and yard every day.
That cows shall not be fed on brew W.
cry Stops or ensllsge, which are fer
mented foods, nor on garbage, which
includes apple parlngs, winch are
deemed a wholesome food, nor on oil
cake, which IN moderation Is q health
full food.
Testimony OF the Inspector.
The testimony of the milk inspector
showed that OF the 40 stables inspect
ed by him, only four were connected
With sewers, q few others being pro-
vlded with tight reccptacles. and few
with wooden dram pipes. The rest,
over 40, are furnished with shavings,
sand. straw, or sawdust, for absorbing
the liquid manures.
The defense asks how the inspector
10 10 know that the manures are daily
removed from the barns and stables.
To require cesspools IN connection with
the stables would in many cases be
putting q premium on disease by con-
Eliminating wells. Should the milk
business, which is the distribu-
tion Of an essentially whole
some product, be restricted by
hcsnse rs Is the sale of intoxlcants.
Grocers selling milk are not obliged to
obtain a license to cell milk, nor others
establishing agencies, though t may be
N some place. where the milk may be-
BONE unwholesome. r. places costly
and unreasonable restrictions on the
peripatetic dealer. Again, the council
nor any other legislative body cannot,
BY declaring q thing nuisance, make
Il such.
Claims of the Presscutros.
The prosecution claims that the city
law Is analogous to the state law
dealing with the came question. Its
fundamental propositions they take as
conceded I. e. that the council had .
hight to pass such law, and that 1t
vas duly passed. and that the ordinance
vas violated. The main question was,
8 the ordinance reasonable? Can the
,ity legislate both inside and outside its
boundaries The city has y right to
inspect outside IN regard to COM
moditles sold inside the boundaries.
But are the requirements reasonable?
The court said not, declaring that they
we're ''foohsh and nonsensicaI;" that
me board of health have no right TO
dictate to the farming community as to
nov thew shall construct their stables,
sheds and COW houses. The field is
covered by general state law, and the
common council / ., no right to put il
In the power of the board OF health or
milk inspectors to direct farmers In
these matters. Court adjourned with
out final action.