Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-04-12

smaller proportion Of tho fatty sub !!
stance known as butterine: that the
only effect Of butterine was to give
flavor to the butter and that 1t 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 manufacturing end 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 i
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
Of 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 IN
the court below was to show by proof
that the particular article the defend
} i
for sale, in violation of the statute,
were in fact wholesome and nutritious
articles Of food. It is entirely con-
? s:stent 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
l&oJ- s,,l; 90
]. is not the fact Every possible pre-
, sumption, Chief Justice Wait said,
! speaking for the Court in Sinking
! Fund Cases, 80 U. S. 700. rs is in
= favor of the validity of the statut =,
: and this conunues until the contrary
: is shown beyond 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 PeclS-5 Crancr
], S7-12s Dartmouth College v Wood
:, ward, Wheat 512-Gf5 Livingston v
= Darlington, 1Ol U. s. t07 xxx And a;
4 it does not appear upcn the face of the
If Statute or from any facts of which
y the Court musst take judicial cogni
a zance, that it infringes rights secured
n by the fundamental law, the Legi5
~ lative determination of those facts
~ is conclusive upon the Courts. 1t il
:, not a part of their functions to con
"a duct Investigations of facts enterin;
:, into questions of public policy merely
~ and to sustain or Illustrate the legis
4 latiye will embodied in statute. a
,t they may happen to approve Or dis
az approved it's determination of sucl
-. questions. If all thai can be said G
- this legislation is that it is unwise
NJ Or unnecessarily oppressive to thos
manufacturing or selling wholesom
oleonargarine, as an article of foot
OF their appeal must be to the Legi:
- lature or to the ballot box. not t
" the judiciary.
ca The latter can not interfere withou
VI usurping powers committed to anothe
CT branch of government"
d Laws restricting the hours of labo
IS in some form, have been enacted i
u many Of the states, and these statute:
IT. when relating to avocatiOns that affeC
of the health or safety of the poop!
~. employed, have generally been sus
us tanned by the Courts as not in conflit
no with state or federal constitution
sc except in Colorado.
10 Aside from these cases in the 81
ny preme Courts of the United State
7w and Of Utah and Missouri sustainin
VI 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 tn
Or vigorous opinion by Justice Field
cid re Newman, 9 Cal. SIS, later adopte
int by the Court in re Andrews Is ca
in 6S5, and the numerous cases cited
he State V. Havnor, State v. Cantwell,
be re Northrup Al Ore. 400, State :
Of Petit, "a MINI o7S and in re Boye
oh Sanders ". Connu, II S. w. 35S Butl'
of V. Chambers So MINI II. State ,
re- Beltd 80 Mich. ISL. Al Am. st $50.
rty N. w. 1904 Mum v. Illinois 81 U.
lot lib.
e1- The decisions in California and Ne
Jus York holding statutes that limit labt
I'M on public works to eight hours to I
ice unconstitutional are not considere
10: applicable here because such emplo
ST. ment was not claimed to be unsafe
10 injurious to health. These cas-
on are not only overthrow by A
sis- kin v. Kansas, 191, U. S. 2
se: "a Sup. Ct. :. 124, but by t
the very principle advanced to susta
su- them, for if liberty of action and fire
no, dom Of the individual to contract
me to control, when the employment
ier- not unsafe or unhealthy, certainly t
ate State ought to have the same right
the regulate the terms and conditions
slty its own contracts and those Of
tut municipalities, as is accorded to
the dividuals.
ely If we were not satisfied as a M
'uly ter of common knowledge that prolol
nat ed labor in the employment restrict
ana by the Statute is injurious to t
health of the workmen as a class,
would datarnairn roua ri ne Ia !,