Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-04-14
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

oleomargarine case is one of highest i'm
portance, and in its legal effect will prove
far-reaching. 1t goes no farther, however,
in affirming the power of State as to po-
lice regulations than did the Supreme
Court Of California some years ago in ex
parte Annie Smith, when Judge Sander
son handed down his exhaustive opinion.
But that case was, Of course, of local i'm
portance only, and could not exercise the
authoritative influence of such a decision
as that of the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The present case is simple. A statute
of Pennsylvania prohibits the manufacture
of bogus butter and cheese. A party was
convicted under that statute. and on ap-
peal to the Supreme Court of the State the
judgment of conviction was maintained.
By writ of error the case then went to the
Supreme Court of the United States. That
tribunal holds the statute not to be in
harmonious with the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Federal Constitution The
Judgment Of the Court is, that it is within
the police powers of the State of Pennsyl-
vania to legislate for the protection Of the
public health against the manufacture and
sale of articles intended for use by the peo-
| pie, which the legislative body of the
State in its Judgment determines is dan
gerously injurious to the public health.
That the Legislatures of States have
the right TO pass upon the fact that
any article made to be consumed by the
people is such menace to their health,
that its suppression is advisable 1t is a
question of fact, not of law, say the Court,
whether the article can be so made as not
to be deleterious to health, and the legis-
lative authority of State is properly
the judge of the fact, the Judiciary will
not interfere with that judgment, except
where it infringes upon some right plainly
guaranteed by the Constitution.
But it was claimed that if the Legis-
latures of the States have the right to pro-
hibit the manufacture of whatever they
may deem lnimical to the general welfare,
then nothing stands in the way of the de-
struction of the constitutional guarantees
OF liberty and property. To this the Court
replies that the judicial arm will protect
the citizen in his assertion of all his con-
stitutional rights and will not assent to
any exercise of power plainly forbidden
by the Constitution. To the plea that the
legislation complained of is unwise and
oppressive, the Court replies that the
remedy is at the ballot-box; in the con-
struction of Legislatures ard the ordering
of the will of the people into law. Finally
it was contended that the statute denies
the equal protection of the laws, but the
Court replies that this position is unten-
able, because the same penalties and bur-
dens are imposed by it upon all persons
engaged in the same business
The decision is in line with the rulings
of the Supreme Court for a lumber of
years. 1t affirms opinions expressed in
the celebrated "Slaughter-Hous cases" of
New Orleans. But it is noticeable, in the
light of the decision sustaining the right
of States to set up and enforce prohibitory
liquor laws, that the tendency of the Court
with each new decision defining "police
regulation" is to get closer to clear def
milton of that term, and to clear away the
doubts and fine standings that have char
acterized all debate upon it. Each of
these decisions concerning the right of the
people of the States to legislate concerning
the conservation of the public health.
public morals, community peace and quiet
and comfort, establishes more firmly the
wise doctrine that the safety of American
institutions depends upon leaving the gov
eminent very close to the people. Every
effort to take it more distantly from them
and to shear the popular will of its power
to legislate for itself, in some degree in
fringes upon the integrity of free govern
ment, and tends to centralize instead of
governmental powers.
1t seems to us that the decision
just made would apply directly to the
famous laundry ordinance of San Fran
cisco, and that the holding of the Courts
in those cases is inharmonious with the
decision in the Pennsylvania cases. As
We understand it an ordinance was passed
in San Francisco prohibiting the establish
ment and operation of laundries within |
certain limits, except under certain con-
ditions. The ordinance afirmatively and
industriously stated the Judgment of the |
local legislative body to be that pro-
miscuous and unrestrained establishment
and conduct of laundries in the heart of
the city was prejudicial to the public !
health, and that the maintenance of dry
ing racks upon the house tops where !
laundrieS were kept was dangerous to fire.
men and increased the risk of coniagra-
tons. But the ordinance was held to
pC OppOotu W Tie TcutTdt CONSTITUTION,
and in derogation of the right of men to
pursue lawful businesses Though the
Supreme Court of the United States now
declares that the judgment of the law
making power as to what is deleterious to
health will not be reviewed, and that the
remedy for unwisdom, of judgment by it is
the ballot.box, the decision in the laundry
case, if we correctly recall it, was that the
laundry business was not such an evil as COM
plainedof and though the ordinancedi not
name the Chinese, that it was in fact aimed
against them as class, and was therefore
special legislation and discriminating.
Yet in the Pennsylvania case the Supreme
Court especially decides that the claim
that the oleomargarine statute is unequal
in It's operation, is untenable, because the
same penalties and burdens are imposed
upon all persons engaged in the same
business.
1t is not necessary to point out in detail
how vitality important such decisions are
in establishing and maintaining the rights
r