Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1921-04-29
Mix ORDINANCE
or WOODSTOCK

1.-THE milk ordinance which provoked
considerable interest, Mr.. M. L. Wal
! ron ST., attorney for the town referred
the legality of the ordinance to Mr..
t Thornhill, State Dairy and Food Com
j missioner of Richmond, Va, and asked
. him to procure the opinion of the At
Itorney General of the State on the
Isubject.
i The Attorney General in written
Iopinon, sustains the validity of the
ordinance, but it is expected that the
town council will probably modify it SO
as to include only milk and cream, not
iother products such as butter.
AS it is matter of vital interest to
lcitizens of the town and the people
Igenerally, we are publishing the
Iopinion of the Attorney General which
lis addressed to the Dairy Commits
lsioner, so they may understand the
Illegal situation and govern themselves
accordingly.
April 25, 1921.
Hon. A. B. Thornhill,
Dairy G. Food Commissioner,
Richmond. Va.
| Dear Sir: Acknowledgment is made
of your letter of April q, in which yon
Irequest me to advise you whether or
not town has the authority to adopt
IN ordinance requiring persons selling
milk or its products within the town to
first procure a permit from the Board
of Health of the said town, showing
that their cows have been subjected to
the tuberculin test and their stables
are in sanitary condition, which or
dinance provides a fine for violation
| thereof
This question was settled by our
Court of Appeals in Norfolk v. Flynn,
101 Va 473 1903, in which il was held
that the police power of the State, so
far as was necessary to protect the
health of the inhabitants of the city of
Norfolk had been delegated to that
city, and that the city had power to
enact reasonable ordinances to protect
| its citizens from the sale of impure,
ladulterated or diluted milk. In so
holding, Keith, P, in speaking for the
court, said:
at is manifest upon the face Of the
ordinance is question that it was passed
in the exercise of the police power of
| the city, and that its sole object was to
secure to the people of Norfolk pure
and unauthorized milk. 1t is matter
of common knowledge that milk is a
necessary food of the sick and of the
infirm, of the old and of the young;
that through the agency of impure milk
the germs of many diseases are dis
seminated; and even where there is
the absence of any deleterious impurity
or the germs Of specific diseases, ad-
liberated or diluted milk is not whole
some and nutritious, and its sale IN its
least injurious aspect is fraud upon
the community. Against such practices
it is the duty TO the constituted au
thorities to protect the communities
under their control The ordinance in
question is not extra territorial in its
effect. 1t is not intended to operate
beyond the limits of the city Of Nor =
folk. 1t only touches those who come
within the limits of the CITY to dispose
of their milk
The court also referred to the case of
State V, Nelson, &c Mimi. 166-6S n w.
1866; "a L. R. A. BIS; 81 Am. St Rep.
1893, in which case almo st the identical
question submitted in your letter, was
passed upon by the Supreme Court of
Minnesota.
To the same effect is Cyc, 1090-1.
From what was said by the court in
Norfolk V Flynn, supra, it clearly APP
pears that the testing of cows for tuber-
culin, is most reasonable precaution
against the spread of disease through
the sale of milk, and | am therefore of
| the opinion that an ordin ance requiring
Ipersons offering milk or sale within
THE corporate limits of town possess
| ing police powers, to first obtain GER
tificate from the board of health of the
town, showing that that their COWS had
been subjected to the tuberculin test
| and found free of disease and that then
stables were in a sanitary condition, is
valid.
| have examined Section 1924 Of the
Code of Virginia 1919, which reads a:
follows;
Under the direction of the Live
Stock Sanitary Board and,the State Dairy
and Food Commissioner, the Stats
Veterinarian shall from time to time
apply the tuberculin test to such breed
| ing or dairy cows as gay be directed
by the said state Live Stock Sanltar.
BOARD and the State Dairy and Foot
Commissioner, for the purpose OF con
TROLLING in the herds of the State thu
}disease known as tuberculosis, ant
tun der such rules and regulations a
Imay be prescribed from time to tim
| by said board and commissioner bu
Ino tuberculin test or tests shal+be ap
lphed to any animal or animals in thi
Estate unless requested by the owner o
towners thereof, and unless such owne
Tor owners shall further agree to NEE
, such requirements as may be made b
the said live stock board and commi:
tsioner, as to the animals submitted
such tests. "
| This section r alates to an entirely di
Iferent subject matter from that undo
consideration. The question in the il
, lstant case is as to the police power {
+ a town to prevent the sale Of diseased
E fspoiled and UNIV holesome food within i
, limits, matter never contemplated /
E tSection 1924 of the Code, the primal