The Minneapolis journal., 1902-06-13
.BORAX PEOPLE WIN
Law Against Preservation Applies
Only to Dairy Products.
THE 1901 LAW IS NOT EXPLICIT
A Supreme Court Decision In the
Rumberg Case Has Il Wide
Bearing.

A Supreme Court Decision In the
Rumbers Case Has Il Wide
Bearing.
Minnesota's pure food law of 1901 Is SO
much waste paper. The supreme court, IN
dairy products, which were mentioned IN
the act of 1899, are covered in the law
prohibiting the use of preservatives, and
that the amendment passed in 1901, pro-
hibiting preservatives Sin all food prod
ucts," is not sufficiently explicit. ..,
The judgment of the Minneapolis NUM-
cipal court is accordingly reversed in the
cases of J. N. Rumberg and C. F. Wagon
balls, local meat dealers fined for selling
meats containing powdered borax.
The decision Is a complete Knockout
for the law and the state authorities, as
there Is no statute covering the case, and
even injurious chemicals may be used in
food products other than milk, cream,
cheese and butter. = ...' .+nE
The opinion is by Judge Collins. He
calls attention to the fact that in amend
ing the act of 1899, clause was left in
saying that this act shall not be con-
strued to prohibit the use of salt in but
tel" This implies that the use Of salt
in other food products Is forbidden. The
court says:
"If 1t was the design of the law-mak-
ing branch of the state government to
inaugurate a radical change in the law
respecting the use OF preservatives, and
to extend the scope of the statute SO as
to bring within its operation all food
products, it would seem that it should
have been done by original and direct
legislation, and not by an amendment,
which is equivical and uncertain
I The act is also criticised for the reason
that it makes no distinction between in
furious and harmless preservatives, in
language which will please the advocates
of borax. Judge Collins says:
Had it. been intended to prevent the
use Of all preservatives upon the theory
that all are injurious to the public health,
or that 1t is impossible to distinguish be-
tween the good and the bad, or had it
been the intent to simply prohibit the use
Of such as may be shown to be delete-
rious, we might reasonably expect stat
ute containing apt and adequate provi-
sions for the accomplishment OF the OBJ
ject in view, not statute presenting the
uncertainty which pervades Chapter 348.
We hold that the attempted amendment
of 1901 was not sufficiently explicit to
cover all food products.
I There is certainly a tendency toward
the enactment of pure food laws, and be-
cause Of this we take occasion to say that
no case in this state is authority for the
assertion that it Is within the power of
the legislature to enact law forbidding
the use of all chemical agents in the pre-
servation of articles of food. Nor do we
know of authority elsewhere for such a
proposition. It cannot we'll be doubted,
however, that 1t is within the power of
the legislature to prohibit the use, in
food products of all kinds of chemical
preservatives which are, or, II injudi-
ciously applied, may prove, deleterious OF
products, or which may be used for fraud
ulent purposes. This power was asserted,
recognized and established many years
since. 1t may be exercised as time and
experience demonstrates the necessity =.
The syllabus says: a.:
estate of Minnesota: respondent, VS.. j. N
Rumherg, appellant. :. - -
c. 343, to laws 1899, c. 257, all food prod
ucts have not been brought within the
purview of the act The amedment COW
ers and embraces only such articles o1
food as may be made from milk and
cream. It does not prohibit the use oi
preservatives in meats. Order and tudg-
ment reversed" ~~.~''.
,.es:..s .~.. --,-~r- COLLINS, j.,
-. Birch Cooley Wins. -Is..~ +
The town of Birch Cooley wins its suit
| with the Minneapolis & st. Louis rail.
| road, which is a legal victory for former
Governor Lind. The court holds that the
| railroad did not comply with the condi.
! tions under which bonus was offered by
| the town, which is therefore released
/ from payment. The syllabus:e
Town Of Birch Cooley, appellant, vs. The
| First National Bank Of Minneapolis, de-
fendant; The Minneapolis & St. Louis
! Railroad company, 1ntervenor, respond.
ents.
| "F1rst-Where municipal bonds are
voted to a railroad company in aid Of the
to them unless there Is full performance
Of all the conditions precedent upor
which they were to be delivered.
| Second-The plaintiff town voted to de
liver It's bonds to railway company upor
the condition that 1t would within
time limited, complete it's road ready foa
| the passage of cars thereon to, into ant
road into the town and to point withir
$50 feet from the outward boundary there.
of, where it stopped at ledge Of granite
and did not continue the road out Of thu
town until eighteen months after the ex
piration OF the time limited Held, not {
compliance with the condition within thu
| ..'r % :l1elS,, -. s1 -
|
| Walter B. Bourne, Of st. Paul, loses ii
! both his appeals. Syllabi Of other de.
cisions filed to-day are as follows:
Ramsey County.
"state of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Wal
ter B. Bourne, appellant. -
! "Ffrst-Where, upon a criminal prose:
| cution, an Indictment for larceny in OBJ.
tanning money or property through false
pretences, it is charged that THE inten
was to defraud a particular person OF
corporation, it is not variance if th'
proofs tend to show that some other per
son or corporation than the one specified
in the Indictment was in fact defrauded
"Second-Where the false pretense
were fraudulent writings Of apparent val
ue sold to third party and it appear
that the purchaser innocently- thereafte
made use Of the same to secure benefit
| therefrom, the law contemplates an in
tent to defraud the person to whom tn
instruments were sold, or whoever part
with money upon reliance thereon.
Third-Upon a prosecution for obtain
ing money of an incorporated bank upol
false pretenses, it is competent as be
tween the bank and the person who re
ceiyed the money to show by parol VIII