The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-03-01
0LE0AARGAR|NE DECISION
Justice Burroughs Opinion of
the Law.
THE ACT is SUSTAINED
The Merchants Sent On to the
Grand Jury for Selling Oleo.
margarine in Violation
Of Virginia's Legis-
lative Act,

people in Virginia who know moth
ing OF the provisions of the cleo mar
garine law passed by the Legislature
of 1892. The act was brought to
public attention conspicuously by
case of Plumley Va. Massachusetts,
decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States last sDecember, in
which the power of State to ex-
clude from the markets any COM
pound manufactured in another
State, artiticially colored or adulter-
ated, so as to cause it to look like
an article Of food in general use, was
clearly established.
The dairymen of the county at
tempted to enforce the Virginia law
after this decision was rendered but
failed. The dairymen of this vi
cinity secured warrants for the ar
rest of Geo. A. j. Scott, VIM. Mo.
Lean, j. b. Baxter and Kaufman
Bros, and test case WAS made.
The case was argued at length be-
fore Justice Burroughs some days
ago who rendered his opinion yes
terday sustaining the Virginia law
at every point of attack. In passing
on the first point made by the coun-
sci for the defense. that the law is in
violation of the constitution of Vir.
GINA, the Justice said:
TO AVOID A STRAINED CONSTRUCTION,
Avoiding strained or technical
construction, and looking to the
entire act, and every part OF 1t, the
important subject about which the
General Assembly was legislating; to
the old law, and the reason and
spirit of the new law, we cannot say
that We regard the act of March LIST.
1892, as in conflict with article ",
section Is of the Constitution of
Virginia.
la concluding his opinion as to
the second point made by the de-
Tense Justice Burroughs says, quot.
ing United States Supreme Court
decision, District of Columbia vs..
Hutton:
1--WE are not unmindful of the
rule that repeats by implication 10
not favored. But there is another
rule OF construction equally sound
and we'll settled, which, we think,
applies TO this case. When there
are two acts on the same subject the
rule ls l. to give effect to both If
possible; CD but If the two are re-
pugnant III any of their provisions,
the latter act, without any repeating
repugnancy, as repeal of the first,
and (3) even where two acts are not
IN express terms repugnant, vet if
the latter act covers the whole sub
lect OF the first, and embraces new
provisions, plainly showing that it
WAS intended as a substitute for the
first act, it will operate rs repeal
of that act. In the multitude of
cases on this subject 1 do not find
any safer rule than the principle
announced in this case"
THE NEW LAW.
"Can we give effect to both acts?
Impossible. The old law permits
and sanctions the manufacture and
sale of oleomargarine; recognizes il
as an article OF trade and simply re-
CURES that it shall be branded,
stamped, marked or labeled. The
new law forblds Its manufacture AMI
prohibits its sale. There are no
conditions or provisions attached to
the new law. 1t Is absolute. Oleo-
margarine Is not therein recognized
as an article OF trade.
"The Legislature has set its seal
OF condemnation upon the manufac
ture, use or sale Of the article.
Whether wisely or unwisely, is not
for me to say. But that the two
acts cannot stand together; that
they are irreconcilably in conflict,
the one with the other; that the new
act covers the whole subject Of the
old law and embraces new proyis
ions, showing that it was intended
as a substitute for the first act.
seems plain TO my mind. / will
overrule the motion to quash the
warrants, and send the cases on 20
the grand jury"