Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-04-14

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 it's wholesomeness: /
that the article sold to the prosecuting !,
witness was a nutritious article Of /
food, in all respects as wholesome rs 4
butter produced from pure unadultrat-
ed milk or cream: that for the purpose
of manufacturing and selling this /
oleomargarine he had invested large
sums in real estate. machinery and
ingredients; that In his traffic in this
article he made large profits; and Y
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
,cf that State Of the United States,
and Justice Harlan, in delivering the
opinion for the latter tribunal said:
1T will be observed that the offer N
1.-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-
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 1t 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 CONTINUES until the contrary
s IS shown beyond a rational doubt.
!. One branch Of the government can
I not encroach on the domain of another
J. without danger. The safety Of our
institutions denends in no small de-
;, gee on a strict observance of this
! salutary rule.
a See. also Fletcher = pecil-e Cranch
. S7-12S Dartmouth College v. Wood
" ward, Wheat 51S-Gf5 Livingston "
= Darlington. l0l U. s. 4o7 xxx And as
\ it does not appear up, = the face Of the
- Statute or from an facts of which
y the Court MUST take judicial cogni-
O. zance. that it infrinses rights secured
y. by the fundamental law, the Legs
" lative determination of those facts
~ is conclusive upon the Courts. 1t is
!, not part of their functions to con
"a 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
~ they may happen to approve or dis
~ approved its determ 7 alton Of such
=. questions. If all that can be said Of
r this legislation is that it is unwise
~ or unnecessarily oppressive to those
manufacturing or selling wholesome
oleomargarine, as an article Of food
-. ,. their appeal must be to the Legis
: lature, or to the ballot box. not tt
=, the judiciary.
~ The latter can not interfere without
" usurping powers committed to another
q branch of government"
- Laws restricting the hours Of labo!
10 in some form, have been enacted in
n many Of the states, and these statutes
L, when relating to avocations that affec
OF the health or safety Of the people
q. employed. have generally been sus
Us tanned by the Courts as lot in conflic
4" with state or federal constitution
sc except in Colorado.
o. Aside from these cases in the Su
ny preme Courts of the United State
w and Of Utah and Missouri sustainin!
M similar enactments directly limiting
the hours Of labor in places named Il
he our Statute, there are many able de
To- cisions maintaining this general dos
re. trine and UNFOLDING various acts sim
er lar in principle among which are tn
| xEz H. IL
I'D re Newman. 9 Cal. 51S, later adopte
hit by the Court in re Andrews 13 Ca
IN 6S5, and the numerous cases cited i
he State v. Havnor, State Y. Cantwell. Il
be re Northrup Al Ore. 400. State '
of Petit, "a MINI o78 and in re- Boyc
oh Sanders '. Connu, n 8. w. 35S. Butte
Of v. Chambers 36 Mimi II. State '
re- Beltd 80 Mich. ISL. II Am. st $50.
rty N. w. 1904 Mum Y. Illinois 81 u.
lot 113.
es- The decisions In California and Ne
'us York holding statutes that limit labo
I'M on public works to eight hours to b
ice unconstitutional are not considere
10: applicable here because such emplo
st- ment was not claimed to be unsafe .
70 injurious to health. These case
on are not only overthrown by A
sis- kin v. Kansas. l91, U. S. q
.e: "a Sup. Ct. {. 124, but by IL
the very principle advanced to sustai
sti- them, for If liberty of acticl and fire
nd, dom of the individual to contract
The to control. when the employment
ker- not unsafe or unhealthy, certainly Il
ate State ought to have the same right
the regulate the terms and conditions
sity Its own contracts and those Of I
tut Municipalities as Is accorded to
the dividuals.
'ety II we we're not satisfied as a MI
'nly ter of common knowledge that prolor
hat ed labor in the employment restrict
and by the Statute is injurious tn II
health of the workmen as a class. +,
70 would determine regarding the a
miss ;hi)itv Of ovid nnco u, tb,c cr