St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-12-19
oLEOMARGARINE DISCUSSION.

OLEOMARGA RINE DISCUSSION.
A few days ago the GLOBE published a
communication from Dairy Commissioner
HOWARD defending the constitutionality of
the law prohibiting the sale and manufact-
IRE Of oleomargarine in this state. In to-
days issue we publish the communication
of Mr.. C. f. BANTER in reply to Mr..
HowARD's card. 1t will be observed that
in the discussion of this subject Mr.. How
ARD follows in the line of the argument
used by counsel for the oleomargarne
manufacturers in the fight they made
against the law in the states of Missouri,
New York and Pennsylvania. The
supreme court of New York held,
as Judge KooN of the Hennepin
district did, that the law was unconstitu-
tional. The supreme court of Pennsylvania
takes the contrary view and holds that the
legislature has the constitutional right to
enact such a law. The opponents of the
law urge that it is a violation Of both the
federal and state constitutions, in that it
abridges the right OF a citizen to earn
livelihood in the pursuit of reputable bust
ness. They claim that oleomargarne is
only substitute for butter, that it is made
from pure animal fats, and contains the
same elements as dairy butter. the only diff
ference being that the manufactured arti-
Gle contains a smaller per cent. of butterine,
and that it is capable of being applied to the
same uses as an article Of food as the ordi-
Diary dairy butter. Hence, they argue. that
they are entitled to put their substitute on
the market In competiti on with the original
article, and that in this right they are pro-
tected by the fourteenth amendment to
the constitution of the United States, as
well as the first section of article one of
our state constitution, which guarantee to
all citizens equal privileges and immuni-
ties. On the face of it the oleomargarne
people have good case. But it is only
superficial. AS has been repeatedly de-
cided by the highest courts of the nation
and of all the states, and a well settled
principle growing out of the nature of civil
society, the rights and immunities guaran-
teed to the citizen by the constitu-
ton are only such as are not in
furious to the rights of the commu-
nifty and are not in conflict with the equal
enjoyment of the rights of others. While
it is automatically true that all men are born
free and equal. it is not implied that each
and every individual has the right to do just
as his individual whimS dictate without re-
gard to the rights and privileges of other
members of society. SO it is when the con-
stitution guarantees the full enjoyment of
civil and religious rights to the citizens of a
government it means such rights as are
legal and not injurious to the public well
fare. The constitution guarantees religious
freedom, yet it will not be maintained that
this feature of the constitution can be con-
strued into protection of the polygamous
practices of the MormOns under the guise of
religion. The inherent right of self
protection exists in a state just as it does in
the individual. Thus it is that courts and
constitutions have come to recognize the
fundamental principle designated the police
power of the state. This power is vested
in the Legislature and to that department of
the government is left the determination of
what laws and regulations are needed to
protect the public health and secure the
public safety and comfort. Just where the
line shall be drawn between the exercise of
this police power and the invasion of pri-
vate rights has been the subject of legal dis
cussion and judicial decisions from time
immemOrial. As an illustration of how
courts will differ in theft definition or rather
description of this power, we have the two
hn oil
garine law rendered respectively by the SUI
preme courts of New York and Pennsyl-
vania. Although they reach different con-
illusions. both courts agree that this grant
of legislative power never included power
for the destruction of harmless industry,
nor under the pretense of police regulation
can the rights of property be invaded or the
citizen be Invested of the right to earn a
livelihood in legitimate manner. The
New York court decided the case before it
upon the theory that the intent of the oleo-
margarine law was to prohibit an important
branch of industry for the sole reason that
it competed with another. Conceding that
this theory was correct, then it follows that
the decision was correct. But the Pennsyl-
NdIld COURT uOCS uUt cOuceuG II. On
the contrary. it assumes that the
legislature had bona fide intention to pro-
tect the public health and prevent the adul-
iteration of dairy products and fraud in their
sale. And basing lis decision upon this
theory the court held that the law was not
repugnant to the constitution. 1t adopted
the view of the Missouri court that the cen
trail idea OF the statute was the prevention
of facilities for selling or manufacturing an
article of butter resembling the genuine
article so closely in its external appearance
as to render it easy to deceive purchasers
into buying that which they would not buy
but for the deception. The Penn.
sylvania decision will stand be-
. cause it is founded on common
sense and is in sympathy with the opinion
of the great mass of the people. Oleomar.
garine is not wanted. If it was in demand
the dealers in the article would not resort to
the deception of imposing it upon their Gus