The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-03-03

tion 1 of the ordinance is broad and
may be applied to everybody; that Sec
tiOn > may be exclusive as applying
only within the city of Richmond, and
that Section > may be exclusive as ap-
plying to those only who are in the
slaughtering business.
''On construction, the ordinance
might with reason be held as not ap-
plying to the slaughter and inspection
outside of Richmond, or only applying
to those engaged in sluughtering as d
business and not applying to those who
slaughter incidentally and not as bus
iness-the farmer etc" continues the
decision. IF applying to Richmond
only, it is invalid for discrimination.
If the method of slaughter and inspec-
tiOn applys only to those in Richmond
or those engaged in it as business
and does not apply to the farmer, then
it is bad for indefiniteness.
Grant that the ordinance applies TO
all, another inquiry arises. Is it rea-
sonable? 1t is for the courts to deter
mine the reasonablSness of an ordi-
nance. Power to enact ordinances is
given expressly or by implication. If
the statute authorizing an ordinance is
definite and prescribes and defines the
manner and form of enactment, etc,
its reasonableness can not be question
ed, if the statute is itself constitution
al If not definite, and only grants a
power, its reaSonableneSs can be ques-
toned. In this case the city has the
right under police powers and by au-
thority of the statute to enact ordi-
nances for inspection. slaughter and
sale of animals for food within the
city of Richmond as concerning the
public health and welfare, but has not
the right to enact an ordinance that
will be unreasonable oppressive, un-
fair and prohibtiye in its operation
and application.
Ordinances should be general in
their nature and impartial in their op-
Grafton. If this ordinance is con-
strued literally as applying to all, then
it is unreasonable, unfair partial and
oppressive to one who Is even in the
oulSIuc TIC IIN vi u.
and especially 50 as to the farmer and
others who incidentally slaughter ami
mails for human food for their own use
once or twice Il year-and have a sur
plus to sell, and by its very application
would become practically prohibitive
as to them. The ordinance unreason-
ably deprives them of a right they. had
and enjoyed and that cannot be taken
away from them on the ground that it
is for the public health and public good
when in its application and operation it
is unreasonable. It is unreasonable
for the reason that it requires the in
spection to be made at the time and
place of Strengthening by an inspector
appointed by the city of Richmond and
under the act of congress of June 80,
1906 which requirement is clearly un-
reasonable as applied 70 the farmer or
one who slaughters animals for food
incidentally
Il am not opposed to proper meat in
spection, and the same can be accom-
plished. but must not be to the injury
of any one and at the expense of any
ones rights.
The reasons for inspection at places
where slaughtering of animals is car
ried on as a business are apparent. In
lection by disease from animals slaugh-
tered by farmers is reduced to min
imum.
The act of congress referred to ex-
cepts farmers and retailers. Why:
Evidently for the same reason as is
here advanced to-wit: its unreaSon.
ableness, partiality and unfairness in
its operation and application
We have laws making it penal of
tense to sell putrid. spoiled and diseas-
ed meats and providing a penalty for
violations. We should be watchful
but We can not impose such require
ments as are i'll this ordinance and
place the whole burden upon the one
who slaughters and sells as the farmer
does. without working d hardship that
is very apparent.
The Ordinane is. therefore. held in
valid as unreasonable, partial. unfair
oppressive and prOhibitiye."