Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1909-07-08

short of the weight 1t purpOrts to be,
shall forfeit and pay FIVE dollars for
each ofense." And in this same
section is get forth the method of pro-
cedure in cases arising under the or
diuauce.
The case in question arose out of the
seizure by the market master of certain
loaves of bread exposed and offered for
sale 10 this city by Henry Schlichting
on the 2Sth day of June, 1909. These
various loaves were of different weights,
being seven-eights of q pound, hslf 9
pound, quarter of pound, and enc and
one halt pounds, and we're in some in-
stances labeled, showing the weight Of
bread in the loaf, aud some were with
cut labels. The exact weight and the
label attached to each loaf is sci forth in
an itemizsd statement. The evidence
was to the effect that all of these losves
were of the weight they purported to be
aud there was no dispute as to the facts
in any phrsse of the case.
1t is contended By the city that this
act on the part of Henry schlichtiug was
in violation of the bread law of the city,
and that he thereby rendered himself
liable to the fine prescribed And on
the part of the defendant it is argued
that the acts of the said Schlchting
we're not in violstion OF the ordinance !;
and secopdIy, that If in vialatiOu Of the
ordinance lie same is VOID on he ground
that it is al unreasonable exercise of the
police power. To ascertain whether
the acts in question constitute q
violation Of the ordinance it is necessary
To 6rd tbs meaning thereof. And tap
pears ths. there can be but one CONSTRUCT
ton of this law. 1t expressly provides
that ali bread, without qualification, ex.
posed or offered for sale shsll he in
losves of Ger ain weights. The second
clause providing penalty must be read in
connection with aud not Independently of
the first; so that the phrase ''purpor.s to
be-" must be held to refer to the weights
named 10 the first section, that is, eight,
four, two and one pound. The object
NJ the law was evidently to protect the
buyer rom fraud sud to assure him that
bread purchased would be found to COM
ply with these regulations as to weight.
If it should be construed to mean that
loaf of the weight prescribed could be
baked aud then cut in any manner this
object would be defeated, for any weight
loaf could be twice or thrice cut and the
buyer would be ignorant of the weight
of any part thereof unless be took the
pains to weigh or have it weighed.
Furthermore, the merchsut who had
thus cut and sold a part OF one pound
loaf could not be considered exposing or
offering for sale loaf and would he viO-
lating the regulations set out III The first
clause of section 10. For part cannot
under any circumstances be considered q
whole. And the provision prescribing
couiscatiOn by the market master of ell
bread made other than according TO the
| regulations ia force prevents the BAKING
of irregular or fractional l0sves.
Hence, under this lsT it seems GER
lain that bread can only be baked in
loaves of eight, four, two and one pound,
and that such losves 10 their entirely
only can be exposed or offered for sale,
and that II this ordinance is valid there
has been in this case an infIsction
thereof.
This and similar laws are passed un-
der what is known as the police power
vested 10 the State aud which the state
of Virginia has delegated TO this city, in
section IA of the city charter. This
section grants to the city the power
ito make sll laws which the City OOuB-
Gil shall deem expedient or necessary for
the preservation of the health Of The in
hsbitants and for the regulation OF the
morals and police Of the city" This ia
general granting of power and ordi-
nances passed hereunder must be Tea.
soDable to be valid. The ordinance IN
question Wss passed at lesst thirty-6Ve
years sgo and has not been amended
since though trade conditions and Gus.
tom demands have shown roarked
changes. Its purpose was to protect
sgsinst fraud~on the part OF the seller
aud perhaps il served that purpose a
generation or so ago. Losves Of the
weights prescribed we're such ssiwere in
demand, but the baking of bread has
progressed with everything else and the
demands of the trade upon the bakers is
different today from what 1t was thirty
FIVE years ago. At that time fancy
breads, rolls, biscuits and individual
losves such as are 10 common use in hO-
tells were unknown, but at present the
sale of these fancy Breads constitutes q
large part of the trade. The consumer
asks for bread Of different weights than |
those prescribed in this ordinance, and |
it is an unreasonable law that prohibits |
the bakers from supplying this demand. |
Their business is q perfectly legal one
and the city Is not empowered to des-
troy any part oil their trade. This law
was passed for an age that is DOW dis |
tsnt, and to hold it good At this DAY
would work an unreasonable hardship |
not only upon the baker but upon ire
consumer, for it is not a reasonable law
that makes 1t impossible for consumer
to buy half pound, quarter Of a pound, |
or any other weight Of bread. Resson-
able regulations for the sale of bread are
proper under the charter provisions,
but to provide that only four specific
sizes Of losves can be made, bought or
sold, DOES not 10 s0y way appear reason
able or necessary for The protection Of
the community. For these reasons
believe this ordinance obsolete aud void,
and 30 huld.
q. GTosvenor Dave. managing direc'
tor of the Southern Commercial Con-