Mayor of Baltimore v. Bloecher & Schaaf, Inc.

⁶⁵⁰ Offtjtt, J., delivered tie opinion of tie 'Court. Tie seventy-one appellees in this case lave for periods ranging from eleven to fifty-six years been engaged in tie City of Baltimore in tie business of slaughtering animals, the flesh of which is fit for food, and of the preparation and sale of the flesh thereof for human consumption. On June 25th, 1925, the Mayor and City 'Council of Baltimore adopted Ordinance Bo. 431, known as the “Meat Ordinance,” the subject and purpose of. which was to regulate that business so as more effectually to preserve and protect the public health. On August 22nd, 1925, the appellees filed, in Circuit Court Bo. 2 of that city, the bill of complaint, in this case, in which they prayed that that ordinance might be declared unconstitutional and void, and that an injunction issue restraining the appellees from executing or in any manner enforcing the provisions thereof.

A demurrer filed to.' the bill was overruled, and the ordinance declared void by an order of that court, passed on August 25th, 1925, and from that order this appeal was taken. It presents a single issue, to wit, is Ordinance No. 431 a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City. Much of the bill of complaint as well as the briefs is devoted to a discussion of the wisdom, the necessity, and the propriety of the ordinance, but since those are legislative rather than judicial questions, we will not refer to them further than to say this, that in view of the decisions of this Court, as well as of the courts of practically every other state and the federal government, it is now too late to deny the power of the state to regulate any business which if unregulated may menace the public health, and that the slaughtering’ of animals'and the preparation and sale of the carcasses thereof for human food is such a business, and those propositions appear to be conceded by the appellees, Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 , and Rose’s Notes; State v. Broadbelt, 89 Md. 565 ; Schultz v. State, 112 Md. ⁶⁵¹ 211; Foote v. Stanley, 117 Md. 335 . ATor have we any doubt that under its charter the Mayor and City 'Council of Baltimore liad the power to adopt an ordinance of the character of that under consideration.

Schultz v. State, supra. Wo will, therefore, proceed at once to those definite and specific objections to the ordinance urged by the appellees, which may properly be considered by this Court. In their very careful and exhaustive brief, counsel for the appellees state that their objections are confined to sections 7, 10, 14- and 15 of the ordinance, and it is not therefore necessary, in referring to the other sections thereof, to do more than state their general tenor, so that their relations to the parts objected to by the appellees may appear. Section 1 creates a meat inspection division in the department of health of Baltimore City, and, provides, for the appointment and compensation of the officers and agents thereof.

Section 2 provides for licensing any business directly connected with the disposition of animal products in Baltimore City. Section 3 provides for the inspection of animals about to he slaughtered and of the carcasses of those which have been slaughtered, and for the condemnation and destruction of such as may be found unfit for human consumption. Section 4 provides for the inspection and marking of all carcasses intended for human consumption, for the condemnation and destruction of such as may he unfit for human consumption, and for revoking the licenses of such operators as refuse to destroy condemned material in the manner provided by the ordinance. Section 5 provides for the inspection and marking of all canned meat products prepared for consumption and sale in Baltimore City, for the destruction of such products as, may he condemned, and for revoking the license of such persons as refuse to destroy the condemned products.

Section 6 provides for labeling and marking such material as may be approved by the inspectors. Section 8 provides for the inspection of the actual slaughtering of animals. Section 9 prohibits the forgery, mutilation, ⁶⁵² destruction, simulation' or misrepresentation of the marks, tags, labels, or other identification marks used under the ordinance. Section 11 prohibits influencing inspectors in the discharge of their duties by bribes and at the same time forbids the inspectors from accepting bribes given to influence their official acts.

Section 12 relates to the revocation of licenses by the Commissioner of Health, and contains, among others, these provisions: “Before the Commissioner of Health shall revoke any license issued under the provisions of this ordinance for any violation thereof, the said Commissioner shall notify the applicant of the alleged violation and that an opportunity will be given him to show cause why the license should not be revoked; * * * and at the healing the Commissioner shall decide the matter, and if he shall be of opinion that a violation has been proved, he shall forthwith revoke the license and such revocation shall be for such period of time as he shall stipulate, but in no event for more than one year. * * * From any adverse action of the Commissioner, there shall be an appeal to the Baltimore City Court, to be taken within twenty (20) days from the date of said action. *" * * The jurisdiction of the Baltimore City Court on appeal shall be limited to the question of the legality of the order, decision, action or determination complained of. Provided, that pending the hearing) of appeal, no order of revocation shall be stayed.” Section 13 fixes the penalties for violations of the ordinance, and section 16 provides for the repeal of Ordinance 204 and the refund of license fees paid thereunder. The first part of the ordinance to which the appellees object is section 1, which is in this form: “That the Commissioner of Health shall cause to be made from time to time by experts in sanitation, and by other competent inspectors, such inspection of all slaughtering, meat, canning, salting, packing, rendering or similar establishments in which cattle, sheep, swine and goats are slaughtered and the meat and meat food products thereof are prepared for sale, offered for sale, or Sold in the City of Baltimore, as may be neces ⁶⁵³ sary to inform himself concerning the sanitary conditions of the same, and where the sanitary conditions of any establishments are such that the meat or meat food products are rendered unclean, unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human food, the Obmmissioner of Health shall refuse to allow said meat or meat food products to be labeled, marked, stamped and tagged ‘Inspected and Passed.’ ” Their1 objection to that provision is that it delegates to the meat inspectors an arbitrary discretion, unguided and uncontrolled by any standards, rules or regulations, under which they could without any legitimate or legal reason suppress at will the businesses of the several complainants, each of which embraces tangible property as well as the right to trade, which is a valuable property right. If that construction can fairly be placed on the language of the section, it must inevitably follow that it is void, because in the absence of any overwhelming necessity for subordinating private rights to the public safety, it would be obnoxious to those provisions of the state and the federal constitutions which guarantee to the citizen the equal protection of the laws, and security in the possession of his property.

Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217 ; Bostock v. Sams, 95 Md. 400 ; Goldman v. Crowther, 147 Md. 282 . But we do not think that it can be thus construed. The appellees contend that under it the inspectors could refuse to mark, approve, and pass meat which was perfectly sound, wholesome, and good, because the establishment in which it was prepared did not in their opinion include the latest sanitary appliances and improvements, regardless of whether they were at all essential to the proper and sanitary preparation of animal food products for human consumption, and could thereby impose upon establishments having but a small capital, bait which nevertheless were operated in a sanitary and wholly unobjectionable manner, and turned out wholesome and sanitary products, burdens and expenses' which would destroy them, and that from their decisions there could be no appeal. But the section neither says nor- ⁶⁵⁴ means that.

Its primary, patent and essential purpose is to confer upon the inspectors the power to condemn material which is intrinsically unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, and it confers upon them no other or broader power whatsoever. They cannot under any power conferred by the ordinance refuse to “pass” products which are wholesome and fit for human food, unless they condemn them, and they cannot condemn them for the sole reason that the establishments in which they are produced do not conform to standards, regulations and requirements not fixed by the ordinance. And the reference to the sanitary condition of the establishments where such products are prepared, contained in that section, means nothing’ more than this, that where such establishments are so negligently operated, and the conditions surrounding the preparation of their products so filthy or unsanitary, that as a matter of common and usual experience it would be impracticable if not impossible to say with certainty that the products were sound, wholesome and fit for food, that they may be condemned. And if, in the exercise of that discretion, they act arbitrarily, or unreasonably, or exceed the power conferred by the ordinance, those injured thereby can obtain relief from the courts.

Stubbs v. Scott, 121 Md. 86. Ro part of the ordinance attempts to regulate the character of the establishments, appliances and equipment for slaughtering animals and preparing their carcasses for human food, but its scope is confined to the character of the products sold or prepared by them, and unless those instrumentalities are ;so obviously unfit, imsuitable, or insufficient for the preparation of wholesome and sanitary products as to malee it improbable as a practical matter that food prepared by them could be sanitary or wholesome, they could not under any power conferred by the ordinance directly or indirectly be condemned, if their products upon inspection were found to be wholesome and sanitary. It is true that the section faildto define the word sanitary, -but it is evident from the whole enactment a'nd from the particular context that it is to be ⁶⁵⁵ given its ordinary and accustomed meaning. And as thus defined it means that which pertains to health, with especial reference to cleanliness and freedom from infective and deleterious influences.

It is not contended by the appellants that it confers upon the inspectors the power to determine the character of or prescribe the construction, the size, or the methods of operating the establishments affected by the ordinance, and clearly it does not have that effect. If it had been intended to deal with those matters, necessarily it would have made suitable provision for the adoption, by competent legist lative or administrative authority, of definite rules and regulations for the construction, equipment and operation of establishments for the slaughter of animals for food and for the preparation of the flesh thereof for human consumption, as was done in the federal statute which is in many respects similar to the enactment now under consideration. That statute provides: “The secretary of agriculture shall cause to be made, by experts in sanitation or by other competent inspectors, such inspection of all slaughtering, meat, canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishments in which cattle, sheep, swine and goats are slaughtered and the meat and meat food products thereof are prepared for interstate or foreign commerce as may be necessary to inform himself concerning the sanitary conditions of the same, and to prescribe the rules and regulations of sanitation under which such establishments shall be maintained; and where the sanitary conditions of any such establishment are such that the meat or meat food products are rendered unclean, unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, he shall refuse to allow said meat or meat food products to be labeled, marked, stamped, or tagged as ‘'inspected and passed.’ ” Barnes’ Federal Code, p. 1980. The section under consideration, while similar in other respects to the federal statute, omits that part which authorizes the adoption of rules and regulations