Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1885-06-18
tbf lanfaster 1ntrlliacnfer.
LANCASTER. JUNE is, 1855.
The New York OleomargarInc Decision.

Il
With all the light that was thrown on
the oleomargarine bill prior to its enact
ment into law by the Pennsylvania legis-
lature, it is remarkable that it succeeded
in getting upon the statute books of the
state. In April, 1884, when the war
against oleomargarine was waging hottest,
the New York legislature passed the bill |
on which the Pennsylvania law was mod |
eled, and it received Governor Cleveland's |
signature. 1t was piece of hasty legisla- |
tion, brought about by the general feeling |
that the oleomargarine manufacturers were
trying to palm off their article as genuine
butter. But when this crusade had spent
itself and afew arrests were made for vio-
lation of the new act, it was seen that the
anti-oleomargarine people had over
reached themselves. The new law could
not stand the test of public sentiment; it
was recognized as demagogic and unwar-
ranted by the constitution of the state.
This change of opinion, however, was
not an immediate result. 1t was not OBJ
tanned until some convictions were had
under the new statute which plainly showed
its absurdity. The General Term in the
Supreme court in Brooklyn and the Suprerps'
Bench, General Term of New York,suxes.
sively affirmed the constitutionalty-T the
law. 1t was not until the act cane under
the.cognizance of the Court of & Appeals of
New York, the highest judissl authority
Of the state, that it was vihsWed in its true
character; and an exaTnle is set to the
supreme court of PENNSYLVANIA in the
knfmotA aginiS of their New York
brethren that the law is unconstitutional.
When the bill was first introduced at
Harrisburg, the eINTELLIGENCER took this
view of it, almost alCne of the newspapers
Of the state; and the course of this journal
in sodoing'was severely animadverted upon
by other state newspapers, protesting an
~nndying devotion to the interests of genu.
inc butter. The latter appeared to have
forgotten that long since legislation was
enacted to prevent the sale of oleomarga.
rine as butter, which was all that its enc.
mics could reasonably expect. To prohibit
entirely the manufacture of oleomargarint
as an article of food was SO senseless and
such an interference with private rights
that it was confidently believed that thu
measure had no show of passage. But
legislatures are queer bodies. They let il
so, the governor signed the BILL it becam,
law, and now it remains for the supreme
court to check this assumption and abus,
of power by declaring with the New Yorl
Court of Appeals that it is not in accort
with the constitution.
Mr.. Justice Pratt, of the New Yorl
supreme court, who dissented from hi
brethren in sustaining this law, pierced tn,
weakest point of its armor when he said
6 1t seems to me a citizen has right t,
make any pure and wholesome article o
food and sell it for what it actually is, AM
it is immaterial what lawful use shall b.
made Of it afterward. If man is too poo
to buy good butter, l see no objection t,
his using oil, cheese or honey, or any othe
substitute for butter. A law prohibitin,
the making of an iron rake to be used as
substitute for one made entirely of woot
could be passed with just the same lega
effect as law providing that oleomarga
rine should not be made to be used as
substitute for butter"
1t is for just such cases as these tina
courts of review were constituted. Tn
warrantable assumptions by the law
making body of the state must be checked
II free institutions are to be preserved il
their purity. The supreme conrt will d,
wisely in knocking this anti-oleomargarin,
legislation on the head and consigning i
to merited oblivion.