The Richmond palladium. (Richmond, Ind.) 1906-1907, 1907-03-05

sequently void as being unconstitu-
tional
Purpose Of the Council.
The evident purpose Of the city
council in enacting the ordinance In
question was to regulate and restrain
hawkers and peddlers from vending
merchandise In a cheap way from
house to house within the city limits
and thus interfering and coming in
competition with reputable and estab-
lished merchants who. by investing
Their means and providing fixor
places or business. and paying taxes
on their merchandise. help to build
up and maintain the city in which
they reside. While this is true. ii ia
likewise apparent that the council did
not propose 70 interfere with the cit
liens who invest their means and be-
stow their labor in producing market
able merchandise. To him, in the way
of reimbursement, was extended an
open market without restrictions,
while the man who sought TO reap
without sowing. was required to pay
for the privilege. And who will say
that this discrimination is unjuste
1t is manifest that the defendants
were not producers. for it is a matter
of common knowledge that bananas
are not cultivated in this climate.
We now come 10 the point in the
case that overshadows all the others,
and that is: Do the exceptions con-
tanned in the proviso render the or
dinance invalid as being unconstitu-
uonal? Does it render the ordinance
obnoxious under the section OF the
Bill of Rights above mentioned. Does
1t grant to any citizen or class OF
citizens privileges or immunities
which upon the same terms do not
equally belong to all citizens?" 1t in
a cardinal principle in our theory OF
government that all persons stand
equal before the law. Favoritism 10
not tolerated. but when does IL existf
In answering this question the dis
tinction between persons. as class
and of class should be kept In mind.
In one sense all legislation Is class
legislation. A law upon any subject
with definite object In view. will
only affect those who come within
the range Of its provisions. Thus a
law regulating railroads will only
concern those who own and operate
railroads A law providing for the
construction of drains and ditcles
will only affect those who construct
drains and bitches. So, law regulat-
ing the sale OF intoxicating liquors
will not concern those who are not
engaged in the traffic. While such
laws in their operation are intended
to and do apply to only certain class
es, vet it is well understood that they
are not for this reason Objectionable
If they are made to apply generally
to all persons under the same condi-
tons. This is the test. Legislative
classification OF persons must be bas-
ed upon substantial distinction which
render one class essentially different
from another. To whatever class the
law applies. It must apply equally to
each member thereof. 1t the basis OF
a classification is valid, II 10 wholly
immaterial how many or how few
constitute the class. This being the
law. how stands the case under con-
sideratfon? When the body of the or
dinance and the proviso are con-
strued together the intention of the
makers OF the ordinance becomes APP
parent, and that intention Is to deny
to non-producing peddlers, az a class. !
the privilege OF vending merchandise
in the streets of Richmond without
first procuring license 20 to do. The
requirements Of the ordinance apply
generally to all members OF this class
without discrimination. One Of the
exceptions contained In the proviso
exempts all peddlers who produce
their own merchandise. thus creating
another class. The distinguishing
features between these classes are
plain and we'll marked. One cannot
be mistaken for the other. The dis
elimination made by the ordinance Ii
between the two classes and 10 csily
This discrimination tho
city council had the power to make.
After a careful examination Of the
I am clearly of the opin-
ion that the ordinance is valid and
that the defendants under the admit
ted facts are guilty Of violating 1t.
For this reason there will be . find
ing for the plaintiff. 49,