St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-04
FOOD LAW IN COURT.
Rival Baking Powder Conn.,
panies Scrap at the
Capitol.
An Old Western Union Stock
Case Decided on It's
Merits.
The Smith Assassination Law
Will Go to the U. S. Su-
preme Court.
Moral Obliquities Straight
ened Out by Police Court
Discipline.

is tDat part OF the f00d adulteratlOn
law relating TO baking powders consti-
tutional?
This was the question argued at con-
siderable length before the supreme
court of Minnesota yesterday afternoon
in the case of Joseph A. StolZ appel
ant, VS.. Ebenezer Thomson, respondent.
StolZ, the plaintiff in this action, sold
baking powder to the amount of $3.50 to
Thomson, and afterwards brought an
action to recover the amount of his bill
This was resisted by Thomson on the
ground that it was not marked as provid-
ed by the law of 1889, and that therefore
being sold in violation of the statutes of
the state the plaintiff ought not to re-
cover. The case was first tried before
Judge Cory, of the municipal court, who
decided in favor of the validity of the
law. An appeal was then taken to the
supreme court for the purpose of test
ing the cOnStitutionality of that part of
the food adulteration act OF 1889 relat-
ing to the manufacture and sale of bak-
ing powder containing alumni. In the
event that the supreme court of this
state affirmS the decision of Judge Cory
| the case will go to the supreme court of
the United States. The case is really
| contest between the manufacturers of
what is known as cream OF tartar bak-
ing powder, and alum baking powder,
| and is a renewal of contests these
| rival manufacturers have been
| engaged in elsewhere; although
| No such contest is apparent from the
record in this case. Frank TriSsal ar
gued against the validity of the law.
and G. A. Severance, of Davis, Kellogg
| d Severance, in support Of it. MI.
| Trissal argued that the constitutional
validity of law is to be tested not by
what has been done under it. but by
what may by its authority be done; and
explained how the act provides two sep
arate penalties, one by fine and impris-
onment, the other by confiscation of the
property of the accused; aud that these
| penalties were to be enforced without
due process of law." and in violation
of the constitutional provisions against
| unreasonable searches and seizures"
He contended that the law had attempt
ed to close the doors of the courts, and
had conferred arbitrary judicial powers
upon the state dairy commissioner;
that the question of guilt or innocence
| of the party accused could not be tried
| by court or jury, because the law had
attempted to fix an analytical test, to be
made by the state dairy commissioner
as the only test of the question as to
whether the baking powder seized by
| him contained alum; and he had de-
| prived the party of the opportunity of
conteSting its accuracy and of being
| present when it is made, and also made
no provision for notice to the party at
any stage of the proceedings from the
seizure to the sale of the confiScated
property under the order of the court.
| He argued that while the title of the
| law indicated that it was measure to
| preserve the public health, and to pre-
| vent fraud; that its provisions had no
| real or substantial relation to the OBJ
| jectS or purposes stated in the title or
contained i'll the act. That no considera-
| ton of the public health prompted it's
enactment because there was no decla-
ration that baking powders containing
| alum were unhealthful. nor was their
sale prohibited; upon the contrary,
| their sale Was authorized if the cans
containing them were labeled; and it
| could not be supposed that the legisla
| ture would say to the manufacturer of a
! dangerous compound that he could
| poison and kill people upon the cOndi-
| ton alone that he should label his COM
pound, and since it was manifest that
| the law was not enacted to preserve the
| public health, and could not be sustained
| upon that ground, it must be upheld, if
| at all, upon the ground that it was
measure to prevent fraud by prohibiting
| the sale of spurious article in imita-
| ton ola pure article. And it could not
| be sustained upon that ground,
| because the law did not deal
with baking powder or leg
islate against it as an imitation
| but as an original substance having
| OODn of tho OuoIifipc Of imitation about
| it, and In this respect it was different
from the oleomargarine law that had
been upheld by this court. If baking
| powders containing alum were not in
| fact injurious and had not been de-
| clared so by this act, and if they are not
| put upon the market as an imitation,
then the whole scope, intent and pur-
pose of the law was an unconstitutional
| and inappropriate exercise of the police
power, and the act of manufacturing or
selling being harmless acts, it was in
| violation of the fundamental rights and
| privileges of the citizen to adopt and
follow such Industrial pursuits as he
| saw proper so long as he did not inter-
fere with the rights Of others. Many
| other points were urged and great
number OF authorities cited, among
| others the recent original package de-
| ciSion.
Mr.. Severance replied at length, dis
| cuSSing the general principles upon
which the police power is established,
| presenting examples of its exercise, and
contending that the provisions of the
act under consideration are valid. and
that the objections urged had been re-
| peatedly overruled by the state and fed.
eral courts. He argued that when the
| police power was applied to such an az
ticle as bread and the elements out of
which it was made, and especially when
| it undertakes to regulate the sale of an
| ingredient of bread which contains
| a substance noXious in itself or in
| its use-as alum iS-there can
| be no question as to the competency of
| of the legislature to enact such laws as
| the one attacked in this case. The use
| of alum and other adulterant articles in
bread was prohibited under severe pen
alties many years ago, and the power
exercised through the statute in queS-
| ton was not of recent origin. Histor-
ical and legal precedents for legislation
of this class were quoted in great num-
| bers.
The case is one of considerable inter-
est to the dairy commissioners depart
ment, as it will probably, if decided
| adversely, put stop to the passage of
any more laws of this nature.
A FAMOUS OLD SUIT.