The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1888-04-14

Justice Harlan rendered very i'm
portant opinion in the Supreme Court
of the United States on Monday affirm
ing the constitutionality of the laws pro-
hibiting the manufacture and sale of
oleomargarine. The suit was brought
from the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania, under the sweeping statute of
that State, which reads as follows ::
"That no person, firm or corporate
body shall manufacture out OF any
oleaginous substance, or any compound
of the same, other than that produced
from unauthorized milk, any article
designed to take the place of butter or
cheese produced from pure unaduter-
ated milk, or cream from the same, or
of any imitation or adulterated butter
or cheese, nor shall sell or offer for sale,
or have in his, her, or their possession,
with intent to sell the same as an arti-
Gle of food"
This is, perhaps, the most compre-
hensiye and sweeping law that exists IN
any OF the States, and the Supreme
Court decides that it is not in conflict
with the Constitution. 1t therefore es-
tablishes the right of State to extend
its police power over all kinds of food
that may be prohibited from manufac
ture or sale by its Legislature. This
opinion settles the Prohibition laws If
there was any further doubt of their
constitutionality after the decisions re-
Gently rendered in the Kansas and
iowa cases.
When the character of the opinion
became known about the Capitol at
Washington it naturally caused consid-
cradle discussion among those inter-
ested in the subject. One Senator,
who is recognized as among the fore
most lawyers in the country, and is
member of the Judiciary Committee,
said: "This is not a new principle,
but only an application of an old one.
| never doubted for a moment that the
Prohibition laws would be sustained, or
that the Supreme Court would decide
that State had right to prohibit or
regulate the manufacture of any article
that is detrimental to the public well
fare. 1t has not only decided that
point, but it has determined that
State may prohibit the introduction
within its limits of any article that may
be detrimental to the public health or
morals. This was the feature in the
recent decision in the case of Bowman
against the Northwestern Railroad
Company, in which the Court held that
State may not only prevent an article
coming into its limits, but may regulate
it after it gets there
As the Legislature of this State has
just passed law prohibiting the manu-
tacture or sale of oleomargarine in
Maryland, it is not probable, after this
decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, that any attempt will be
made to test the constitutionallty OF the
Maryland law, since it is framed upon
that now in force in Pennsylvania. AS
one of our Baltimore exchanges says:
This settles the status of those in
Maryland who deal in imitation butter,
as the statute passed by the last Legs
lature is similar to that now in opera
ton in Pennsylvania. No state court
would be guilty of the folly of attempt
ing to override the above decision, be-
cause ali appeal would at once secure
the enforcement of the statute. If
there is genuine demand for imitation
butter, as is claimed by the manufac
turers and dealers, it will make itself
felt sooner or later in change OF
public opinion and the repeal of the
law.