The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-01-20

ton"
However, there is no absolute free
dom to do as n wills or to contract
as one chooses. The guaranty of lib
erty does not withdraw from legislat-
i've supervision that wide department
OF activity which consists OF the maxi
ing of contracts, or deny to govern
ment the power to provide restrictive
safeguards. Liberty implies the alb
sence of arbitrary restraint, not inn
munity from reasonable regulations
and prohibitions imposed In the inter-
ests of the community
This right to make contracts els
subject, also, in the field Of state ac-
ton, to the essential authority OF gov
eminent to maintain peace and safety,
and to enact laws for the promotion
of the health, safety, morals, and well
fare Of those subject to its j~urisdic-
ton"
The principle involved in transact
tons under these rules is, that where
the legislative action is arbitrary and
has no reasonable relation to a pur-
pose which it is competent for goS-
eminent to effect, the legislature tran
sends the limits of its power in in
terfering with the liberty OF the n
tract; but where there is reasonable
relation to an object within the gov
ernmental authority, the exercise of
the legislative discretion is not subject
to judicial review. The scope of ju-
dicial inquiry in deciding the question
of power is not to be confused with
the scope of legislative considera-
tons in dealing with the matter of
policy. Whether the enactment is wise
or unwise, whether it is based on
sound economic theory, whether 1t is
the best means to achieve the desired
result, whether, in short, the legisla-
tive discretion within its prescribed
limits should be exercised in a partic-
ular manner, are matters for the judg-
ment Of the legislature, and the earnest
conflict of serious opinion does not
suffice to bring them within the range
of judicial cognizance. The legisla-
ture, being familiar with local condt-
tons, is, primarily, the judge of the
necessity Of such enactments. The
mere fact that a court may differ with
the legislature in it's views Of public
policy, or that judges may hold views
inconsistent with the propriety of the
legislation in question, affords no
ground for judicial interference, I'M
less the act in question is unmistak-
ably and palpably in excess Of legis-
lative power. If there existed a con-
dition of affairs concerning which the
legislature OF the state, exercising its
conceded right to enact laws for the
protection of the health, safety, or well
fare of the people, might pass the law,
it must be sustained; if such action
was arbitrary interference with the
right to concede or carry on business,
and having no just relation to the pro-
lection of the public within the o
Of legislative power, the act must
fail" "
The foregoing quotations are from
a very late case, Chicago, B. & @. r,
Co. VS.. MCGUIRE, 219 U. S. 563. Cos
Law Ed. 32s), decided by the supreme
court of the United States, in which
the opinion was written by Justice
Hughes.
And, finally, Every possible pre-
sumption" Chief Justice Waite said,
speaking for the court in Sinking
Fund Cases, SO u. S. 718, GA Law Ed.
SOD, "is in favor of the validity of a
statute, and this continues until the
contrary is shown beyond a rational
doubt. One branch of the government
cannot encroach, on the domain of an
other without danger. The safety or
our institutions depends in no small
degree on a strict observance of this
salutary rule"
Because the business as now con-
Quoted is an established one n the
changes proposed will result in ex-
pense and inconvenience to defendant:
because present methods have been
regarded legal, and arose out of COM
petition and other enumerated in
stances; because other food products
are sold In packages in the gross
weight form, and because in the opin-
ion Of defendants counsel a cessation
of business in this state would unfortu-
nately follow If they are compelled to
comply with the law, when each and
all are addressed to the legislative
discretion, should induce careful CON
~sideration to prevent an arbitrary ex-
ercise of power, yet they do not there
by furnish a basis of judicial interior
ence where in fact no such basis ex-
lists. Doubtless defendants had no idea
of deceiving the general public when
originating the gross-weight method
of sale of their products, still IL the
packages as put up and sold are CAL
culated to and do in fact deceive the
public, then the legislature would be
clearly within it's powers in attempt
ing to prevent such fraud. Who shall
decide this disputed question of fact?
Who will say that there is not in this
legislation "a reasonable relation to
an object within the governmental au-
thority," viz, to prevent fraud? with
equal intensity counsel for both par
ties affirm and deny. Has the defend
ant, upon whom the burden Of proof
lies, shown beyond a rational doubt
an arbitrary exercise OF power?
Clearly not. Upon the contrary, the
evidence shows that muc Of the dire
results pictured to follow are largely
speculative.
If, as the evidence shows. the de-
PENDANT can AFFORD to and does, for one
firm in New York City. Ozark & TIL
ford), put up lard in pals containing
three, five and ten pounds net weight
what might we expect 1t to do to pre-
serve the trade of a state whose pres
ent population is consuming 420,0 600
pounds of pail lard annually?
And can we assume that the intelli-
gence of the people Of North Dakota
will be so offended, when appraised OF
the fact that full weights are to be
given, that they will entirely foregc
trading in a commodity put up under
such sanitary conditions, as it the lard
offered In evidence?
The question Of competition cannot
be considered a factor, because all