St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-12-04
A TEST CASE
Which is of Interest to the Entire
State-.Butferine on Trial.

Which is of Interest to the Entire
State--Butterine on Trial.
The arraignment of William d. Peet a
commission merchant, in the district court
Yesterday upon an Indictment charging him
with selling butterine, is likely to test the
constitutionality of the law passed by the
legislature last April to prevent the manu-
facture and sale of adulterated dairy pro-
ducts The section which it is claimed Mr..
Peet has violated, reads:
Section l. No person shall manufacture
out of any Oleaginous substance, or sub
stances, or any compound Of the same, or any
compound other than that produced from I'M
adulterated milk, or of cream from the same,
any article designed to take the place of
butter or cheese produced from pure, unadul-
terated milk, or cream from the same, or shall
sell or offer for sale the same as an article OF
food. This shall not apply to pure skim milk
cheese. made from pure skim milk. Who
ever violates the provisions of this section
shall be guilty of misdemeanor, and be pun
ished by fine of not less than one hundred
GOOD, nor more than five hundred (50O)
dollars, or not less than six (6) months or
more than one ~ years imprisonment, or by
both such fine and Imprisonment for the first
offense and by imprisonment for one ~ year
for each subsequent offense.
Attorney G. F. Baxter, for the defendant,
demurred to the Indictment on the ground
that the law is unconstitutional, holding
it to be adverse to the provisions of the con-
stitution of the United States, under article
Il. and to the state constitution. A de-
cision of the New York court OF appeals
was referred to. in which the New York
law, after which the Minnesota law was
drawn, was held to be unconstitutional, as
its provisions were unreasonable in that
they prohibited the manufacturing of what
might be a perfectly wholesome substance
and that there was a difference of opinion
; as to the whOleSOmeneSS Of butterlne, COM
petent authorities holding it to be per-
fectly pure. 1t was claimed in addition by
Mr. Baxter that the law was unconstitu-
tional because of its confliction with the
provisions of the Minnesota statute. which
holds that the title of law must include
the provisions of the act and that but one
point must be included in the title. 1.-The
Minnesota law, in addition to the butterine
clause, provides for the appointment of
dairy commissioners, said Mr.. Baxter,
land on that ground alone is unconstitu-
tional" He cited a decision to that effect
by the Michigan court of appeals.
IN ANSWER.
County Attorney Davis held that no par
alel existed between the Minnesota and
Michigan statutes. tie referred 10 the cele-
brated Missouri case, in which Roscoe
Conkling appeared for the oleomargarine
companies i'll which an appeal was taken
and the Missouri court of appeals held the
law to be good. The question was one that
interested every producer of dairy products
in the state. and the supreme court should
be allowed to pass on the question in order
to furnish guide to every attorney in the
state, as it is the first case brought under
the law. The defendant can plead guilty
here and reserve the right to have the ques-
ton tested by the supreme court" said Mr..
Davis. In any case L insist that the SUI
preme court shall pass on the question. or
we will be in the same fix as now"
Judge Koon therefore, when the argyll
ment was had, indicated that he considered
the law unconstitutional, but said he desired
to hear Mr.. Davis on the Missouri case
cited, and would continue the argument to
Monday, when he will also decide whether
the question is one which he will decide, OF
whether it can be carried directly to the
supreme court as test case.