The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1908-12-14
THE ORDINANCE STANDS
Judge Bullock sostains the City in
Its Dissemination to Have
Pure Milk

the State Of Florida, Marion Coun-
ty-In Re OF the Petition OF J. II.
Roller, for a Writ Of Habeas Corpus
This cause came on 10 be heard on
the return Of W. c. Bull as city mar
shal Of the city OF Ocala. Florida. 10
petition for a writ OF habeas corpus
and the same having been argued by
the attorneys OF the respective parties.
The acts complained of and on
which the petitioner was arrested and
adjudged guilty and sentenced by the
Mayor of the city, are admitted as
true, but contends that the law is
void and unconstitutional and extra
territorial in effect and beyond the
power Of the city to enact. The con-
tention is that it is ultra wires and is
unconstitutional in attempting to levy
tax on a person not a citizen of the
town 10 raise revenue to pay city ex-
penses-
The ordinance is a long one and
there are features or il which are
extra territorial in effect according TO
the letter Of the ordinance The first
section makes il unlawful Ffor any
products, unless said milk or dairy
products shall be labeled Certified
under the provisions of the ordinance.
The Sth section of the ordinance re-
quires that dealers in milk shall have
the cows inspected and tested at
! laset one each year by the city in
spector of Milks and Meats The 14th
section requires the owners Of the
| stock to pay for the tuberculine for
testing cows and $500 day toward
the hire of the city inspector"
II viii be seen that by this ordi-
| nance that no one can ''own" a COW
for the production of milk and dairy
products for the city OF Ocala," which
has not been inspected by the city in
spector.
In the case of Minnesota VS.. Mel
! son "a l.. r. A. 31S the city ordinance
required persons who desired TO sell
milk In the town of Minneapolis to
make an application for he City In
spectOr to make the designated in
spection. and the refusal Of the appli-
/ cant to do so would result IN the ap-
plicant's failure to get license. It
further provided that cows found with
any contagious disease could not BIZ
used for the production Of milk for
sale In the town. The similarity of
the ordinances Is very grent. III -tha
applicant refused TO comply with The
| ordinance. he could not get a permit
| for license. therefore he bad to sub
nit and not only submit, but request
! that his stock be tested ID see if they
[ in, -
| him to sell milk in the city.
1t is not practicable to have dairy
herds in a town. If an inspection
must take place, it must take place
where the herd is found, and usually
| beyond the limits OF the town The
| town has a right TO provide for the
health and welfare OF its citizens and
! to prevent impure milk coming in,
and as was said in the Minneapolis
case, a bare inspection of the prod
uet, the milk" is not sufficient test
to discover the presence of the disease
germs. and of necessity the animal
must be inspected. then the going out
of town must be done to inspect the
! cows. The burden does not rest on
the defendant unless he wants to en-
joy its benefits. the right to sell in
the town and in order TO secure this
/ right, his cows must be examined. The
extra territorial point was passed on
by the Supreme Court Of Minnesota in
the Minneapolis case, and the court
said there was no merit in the con-
tention
The only difference in the two or
dinances in effect is that in MEME
apolis the person had to make an APP
1 plication and have the cows inspect
| ed, il not appearing who paid the ex-
/ pense, and in this case no formal re-
! quest is necessary, but the same per-
son. to wit the City Inspector, must
make the test and then his is certi-
fed and il seems no other matter is
needed to permit such sales. and then
license is issued upon the paymen.
OF the license fee. The court held the
| Minneapolis case to be a reasonable
| police regulation. 1t viii be noticed
that the inspection of dairy and dairy
| herds outside the city limits provided
| for by this ordinance applies only to
! those whose milk product il is pro-
posed To sell in the city limits and
the ordinance goes only so far as is
| reasonably necessary to prevent the
milk of diseased cows being sold
within the city. The ordinance has no
extra territorial operation and no ef-
! fort to give it such effect" To exer-
/ else the privilege in the city the city
( regulations must be complied with.
the ordinary precautions TO protect the
health OF the citizens. and in doing
this a part of the performance of the
| acts to ascertain qualifications are
done out of the city limits. and IF
necessity must be BY the party who
desires 10 exercis esuch right in the
city. If the person who wanted to
/ sell was in one town with one cow
he would have to comply with the
regulations Of the city ordinance in
order to sell, while his neighbor who
lives just few feet out of town could
come in and be exempt from such
regulations.
All the questions raised in the pres
ent case have been substantially pass
ed on in the Minneapolis case and
contrary to the contention of the petit