The Paducah sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1898-1906, 1905-06-27
COW ORDINANCE
KNOCKED SKY HIGH
CONTINUED from First page.)

/
before me, and demand that they
proceed TO show cause why | should
not fine them, that such a law Is
repugnant to a republican form Of
government, and unconstitutional,
do not for a moment doubt; upon
what theory Of right or sound rea-
soning can II be contended that a per
son charged with violation OF this
ordinance. should be called upon
before he is proven guilty - show
cause WIZ he should moi be fined
five dollars and If the court starts
out demanding Of the defendant
that he show cause why he should
not be thus fined, by what rple would
the court be governed?
When would the proof be sufh-
Client to annul the presumption Of
guilt II the defendant should be ar
raigned in the city court, and de-
manded to show cause why he should
not be fined for breach of the
court for murder, where would he
start his proof? How far Would he
go, and what proof would be cQmpe-
tent to establish his innocence, and
rebut the presumption of guilt?
These questions may be perfectly
plain to gentlemen who do not have
the enforcement of the law, but
frankly confess that they present Sc
rlous objections to me. There Is still
another important objection to the
enforcement Of this ordinance, Our
constitution, both state and federal,
provides that a citizen shall not be
deprived of his property without due
process Of law, but II the citizen is
to be arraigned and demanded to
show cause why he should not be
fined a certain sum of money, and
his property taken to liauidate the
fine ana the costs, of the proceeding,
If that would not be taking property
without due process of law, | frank
ly confess that do not see how that
could be done. In the case of Gala
CHER VS. Wooster 4th Reporter ESQ,
the court says: "A city ordinance au-
thorizing the seizure and sale of a
hog running at large. without any
judicial determination of the forfeit
ure. is invalid. and an ordinance of
the city court, directing such seizure
and sale, is no protection to the Of
ficer making It, Under the ordinance
now before me, as will be observed,
there is no provision except by impll-
cation to try the question of forfeit
ure, and the consequent sale of the
animal, in the event 1t should be
adjudged. that the animal was
wrongly permitted to run at large
upon the streets. IL will also be OBJ
served that there is no right of APP
/ peal given by the ordinance, not
/ withstanding the summary and dras-
/ tic procedure adopted. While such
grave consequences may result to
The property owner, cannot believe
! II either wise or judicious to take
from the defendant the right of APP
peal; yet there is none provided for
in this ordinance. Althongh a COW
worth $50 or s75 might be sold
under IT,
A further objection might be urg-
ed against this ordinance, In that IL
undertakes TO confer upon the City
Judge, civil Jurisdiction. that is eS-
pressly prohibited, In the Charter, as
will be seen by reference to Section
OF the Kentucky Statutes. There
is another objection that may be urg-
ed against the validity of this ordl-
nance, With great plausibility. On
the 10th day OF May, 1908. the Leg
islature of Kentucky passed an act
To regulate the running at large of
stock The act provides that upon
the petition OF 100 voters OF any
county or twenty voters of any magis-
terial or voting district, the question
as to whether cattle or stock of any
kind shall be permitted to run at
large within the territory where the
vote Is taken, shall be submitted to
the people; the majority of the vot-
ers declare against such running at
large of cattle, II shall thereafter, be
unlawful TO permit same to run at
large; and proper methods of punish
ment for violation OF the act have
baen provided The act has since
become part of the Kentucky Stat
utes. II is known as Chapter 1872.
lnasmuch as this chapter makes no
exceptions as TO the running at large
of stock, Il may we'll be doubted II
any city or town can prohibit the
running at large of cattle, without
]