Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-04-09


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 curing and selling this
oleomargarine he had invested large
sums in real estate, machinery and
ingredients; that in his traffic in this
article be made large profits; and 4
prevented from continuing it the value
Of his property employed therein
would be entirely lost. and he be de-
prived Of the means of livelihood.
The rejection of this proof by the
trial court and the conviction AMI
judgment against the accused were
were sustained by the Supreme Court
# that State Of the United States,
and Justice Harlan, in delivering the
opinion 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 III lcCl, WuOIeSOQ0 anu DutTltlOuS
articles of food. 1t is entirely con-
sistent with that offer that many. in
deed, that most kinds of olemargarine
butter in the market contain ingred-
tents that are, or may become in
furious to health. The Court cannot
say from anything of which it may
take judicial cognizance, that such
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 conunues until the contrary
: is shown beyond a rational doubt.
!. One branch of the government can
: not encroach on the domain of another
). without danger. The safety of our
institutions depends in no small de-
!, gree on a strict observance of this
! salutary rule.
. See, also Fletcher v. Peck Cranch
> SIPS Dartmouth College v. Wood
~ ward 4 Wheat 518-e95 Livingston v.
! Darlington, 1O1 U. S. lO7 xxx And as
\ it does not appear upon the face of the
= Statute or from any facts of which
y the Court musst take judicial cogni-
q. zance, that it infringes rights secured
=. by the fundamental law, the Legis.
~ lative determination of those acts
~ is conclusive upon the Courts. 1t js
:, not a part of their functions to con
20 duct investigations of facts entering
- into questions Of public policy merely
=. and to sustain or Illustrate the legis
A lative will embodied in statute. as
At they may happen to approve or dis
~ approved its determination Of such
=. questions. If all that can be said o
= this legislation is that it is unwise
NJ or unnecessarily oppressive to those
manufacturing or selling wholesome
oleomargarine, as an article of food
Or their appeal must be to the Legis
" lature, or to the ballot box. not t.
y the judiciary
~ The latter can not interfere withou
u usurping powers committed to anOthe
= branch of government"
IS Laws restricting the hours of labo
Is in some form, have been enacted il
u many of the states, and these statutes
lt, when relating to avocations that affec
UT the health or safety of the peopl
a. lemployed, have generally been sus
Us tanned by the Courts as not in confic
40 with state or , federal constitution
ee except in Colorado.
10 Aside from these cases in the ST.
ny preme Courts of the United State
ew and of Utah and Missouri sustainin
OF similar enactments directly limitin
the hours of labor in places named
he our Statute, there are many able d.
ID cisions maintaining this general do
re, trine and unfolding various acts sim
ter lar in principle among which are th
or vigorous opinion by Justice Field
cid re Newman, 3 Cal. 51S, later adopte
,ht by the Court In re Andrews Is Ca
IN 685, and the numerous cases cited
he State v. Havnor, State v. Cantwell,
be re Northrup Al Ore. 400, State
of Petit, "A MINI s78 and in re Boys
lch Sanders v. Connu, n S. w. 35S. Butt,
Of v. Chambers 36 MINI IL State ,
re- Beltd 80 Mich. ISL. Al Am st $50.
rty N. w. 1904 Mum v. Illinois "a U.
1ot 113
es' The decisions in California and Ne
JUS York holding statutes that limit lab
I'M on public works to eight hours to
ice Unconstitutional are not considere
10: applicable here because such emplo
sti- ment was not claimed to be unsafe
10 injurious to health. These cas-
on are not only overthrown by 4
gls- kin ". Kansas, 1911, U. S.
ger "a Sup. Ct. &. 1874. but by t
the yerv principle advanced tn susta
'sti- them, for if liberty of action and FRI
NO. dom of the individual to contract
me to control, when the employment
xer- not unsafe or unhealthy, certainly t
tate State ought to have the same right
the regulate the terms and conditions
sity its own contracts and those Of
tut Municipalities as is accorded to
the dividuals.
fety If we were not satisfied as m
ruly ter of common knowledge that prolo,
that ed labor in the employment restrict
and by the Statute is iniurious tn +
health of the workmen as a class,
: 70 would determine regarding the
instability of evidence in this c.
J. S nectiOn to enlighten the court a