Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-04-11

smaller proportion Of the fatty sub !
stance known as butterine; that the
only effect Of butterine was to give
flavor to the butter and that it hal
nothing to do with its wholesomeness.
that the article sold to the prosecuting
witness was a nutritious article Of
food in all respects as wholesome AS
butter produced from pure unadultrat-
ed milk or cream; that for the purpose
OF manufa cturing and selling this
olcomargarine he had invested large
sums in real estate. machinery and
ingredients; that in his traffic in this
article he made large profits: and 4
prevented from continuing it the value
Of his property employed therein
you'd be entirely lost, and he be de-
prved of the means of livelihood.
The rejection of this proof by the
triol court and the conviction AMI
. Judgment against the accused were
, were sustained by the Supreme Court
, cf that State CT the United States,
and Justice Harlan. in delivering the
, cpinion fer the latter tribunal said:
1t will be observed that the offer IN
the court below was to show by proof
that the particular article the defend
> ant sold, and those in his possession
, for sale, in violation OF the statute,
!. were in fact. wholesome and nutritious
: articles of food. 1t is entirely con-
r sstent with that offer that many, in
; deed. that most kinds of olemargarne
n butter in the market contain ingred-
!. tents that are, or may become in
a furious to health. The Court cannot
!. say from anything OF which it may
foly ia; ~, L,
:. is not the fact. Every possible pre-
!, sumption, Chief Justice Wait said,
= speaking for the Court in Sinking
! Fund Cases, 80 U. S. 700. 71s is in
- favor of the validity of the statute >,
=, and this conlinues untll the contrary
y, is shown beyond rational doubt
); One branch Of the government can
a not encroach on the domain of another
:. without danger. The safety of our
institutions denands in no small de
y, gree on a strict observance of this
a salutary rule.
10 See also Fletcher v Peck-6 Crane:
- S7-12S Dartmouth College V. Wood
~, ward. Wheat 51S-G"5 Livingston V
~ Darlington, 10l U. S. t37 xxx And a:
IA it does not appear upcn the face of The
of Statute or from any acts OF which
- the Court MUST take judicial cogni
re- zance, that it infringes rights secured
W. by the fundamental law, the Legis
M, lative determination Of tt fact!
49, is conclusive upon the Courts. 1t j
h., not a part of their functions to cor
10 duct investigations of facts enterin
-, into questions of public policy merely
-, and to sustain or Illustrate the legi!
lative will embodied in statute. a
~ they may happen to approve or di
10 approved its determination Of sue
-, questions. If all that can be said {
g this legislation is that it is unwis
,r+ or unnecessarily oppressive to thos
manufacturing or selling wholesOm
oleomargarine, as an article of foo
ior their appeal must be TO the Legi
u" lature, or to the bauct box. not t
ay the judiciary.
'en The latter can not interfere withol
ou1 usurping powers committed to anotht
yer branch of government
las Laws restricting the hours of labt
5ls in some form, have been enacted
i'h- many of the states. and these statute
H. when relating to ayOcatiOnS that affe
hoi the health or safety of the poop
~. employed, have generally been SUI
nus tanned by the Courts as not in confli
ana with state or federal constitutio
ige except in Colorado.
no Aside from these cases in the s
ths preme Courts of the United Stat
'eW and of Utah and Missouri sustainii
Oh similar enactments directly limitil
the hours of labor in places named
the our Statute, there are many able
'ub- cisions maintaining this general dc
ere, trine and UNFOLDING various acts sin
fter lar in principle among which are t
nor vigorous opinion by Justice Field
leld re Newman, 9 Cal. SIS, later adopt
ght by the Court in re Andrews IS c
5 IN 6S5, and the numerous cases cited
the State V. Haynor, State V. Cantwell,
be re Northrup Al Ore. 400, State
5 of Petit, "A Mimi o7S and in re Boy
UGH Sanders V. Connu, II S. w. 35S. Butt
Y of V. Chambers SO MINI II. State
ore Beltd 80 Mich. Isl. II Am. St $50.
irty n. w. 1904 Mum V. Illinois 81 U.
not 113
der The decisions in California and n
lous York holding statutes that limit lab
lulh- on public works to eight hours to
'tce Unconstitutional are not consider
AID: applicable here because such empl
est ment was not claimed to be unsafe
9 10 injurious to health. These cas-
con- are not only overthrown by
agis- kin V. Kansas. l91 II 6
nger "a Sup. CT !. 124, but by
the very principle advanced to sust
-estl- them, for if liberty of action and fl
and, dom of the individual to contract
The to control, when the employment
eXer- not unsafe or unhealthy, certainly
State State ought to have the same right
the regulate the terms and conditions
sslty its own contracts and those Of
htut- municipalities, as is accorded to
the dividuals
afety If we were not satisfied as a n
truly ter Of common knowledge that prol(