Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-09-21
.AN1lSNUFf
Law Tested
Stark County Case 10 Test
Famous Snuff Law Of
Last Winter

" To. VI B4E---~ -. &.E E.se.# -&g
Much interest is attached to the test
OF the North Dakota anti.snuff law
which Is now In litigation. At the re-
cent term Of court in Stark county
c. J. Olson, a tobacco dealer of Dick
inson, was convicted Of violating this
act and fined $500. The case war ap.
pealed to the supreme court and the
American Tobacco company is making
the fight Oh behalf Of Olson. Olson
was convicted in the district court
| Of selling four M ounce boxes or
packages Of, right cut chewing tobac-
co and fined $500.
Section 1, chapter I'll, laws of
1913. prohibits the sale or manufac-
ture of SNUFF or any substitute there
for" Section 2 defines snuff "as any
tobacco that has been fermented OF
dried o avored Or pulverized or cut
or scented Or otherwise treated, or
'any substitute therefor, or imitation
thereof, intended to be taken by the
mouth OF nose."
This section, however, cXempts
from this definition 'ordinary plug,
finecut, or longcut chewing tobacco
as now commonly known to the trade
Of this state"
1t appears that right cut chewing
tobacco is a fermentcd tobacco, finely
Culverized, treated, and scented and
Prof. Ladd, one Of the experts for the
state, contend that it is a substi-
tute for snnfr, Or ITO all practical pur-
poses is snuff. Intany event, contends
the state it is not 'ordinary plug. fine
cut or lcng cut chewing tobacco
commonly known to the trade Of this
state" . "
On the other hand the American To-
| bacco company contends that it is
! not snuff, and not a substitute for
snuff, but that IT. is an ordinary fine.
cut chewing tobacco. They also con.
end that Copenhagen is not snuff, but
is also a fine II chewing tobacco;
they also contend that the law is un.
i COlIOIllutkOIl0l Y % IL u1oCl I1nIldvCS
against one classsof merchandise. and
also that the bill Is BROADER than the
title.
The appellants brief Is now in the
hand of the state. Judge CarmOdy
Of the attorney generals Office is as.
sisting States. Attorney r. E. Murtl1a
of Stark county in the preparation
Y If tho cfntoSr. hr;nf b. Nh r0cn will
be heard IN the supreme court in the
not distant future. "'4
The attorneys for Mr.. Olson and the
American Tobacco company base their
claim that tile law is non void upon
the following propositions of law and
fact: ...,.
The statute properly construed op'
crates as to snuff only. The body Of
the act literally construed would pro-
hfbit the sale of snuff and of most
chewing tobaccos, but the title gives
notice only to snuff. Therefore, in
accordance with section %sixty.onc of
the North Dakota constitution the act
must he SO construed as to limit its
operation to stuff.
Right cut chewing tobacco is nos
snuff and is therefore not prohibited
by the act. -
The act is. not operative as to sub
stitutes for snuff. but oven if it wee
so construed, right cut chewing tobac.
co is not a substitute for snuff.
Even If the act prohibited the sale
Of substitutes and right cut chewing
tobacco was held to be a substitute
for snuff it is not more of a substi.
ute than are finecuts, finecut shorts,
!ongcuts, plug. scrap and other chew
ing tobaccOs which are not affected
by the act. There is no substantial
difference between right cut and these
others to justify q discrimination
against it. Therefore, to exclude
right cut from the markets of this
state by permitting the sale Of the
other chewing tobacco would by spec
tal and class legislation. a violation
of sections eleven and twenty Of the
constitution Of North Dakota and of
that clause of TIE fourteenth amend
ment to the federal constitution by
which. a state is prohibited from
denying to one the. equal protection of
the laws.
If the title to the act be excluded
and the act be construed literally
then the effect would be TO exclude
from the mai kets of Nortl, Dakota,
tobacco; scrap tobacco, roll to-
:bacco, and numerous other chewing
%tobaccos, while permitting the sale OF
ordinary; plug. finecut,, and longcnt
chewing tobacco as o commonl'
known to- the trade OF this state
This would be mere arbitrary discrim
ination, violative Of sections eleven
and twenty Of the constitution OF
North Dakota and Of that clause OF
the fourteenth amendment Of the
federal constitution. that prohibits the
states from denying to one the equal
protection of the laws, and would rem
der the entire act void.
FORMERLY OF MlNoT.
A. F. Bacon Of Minot was in the
a..-sA-s 4.aa.-E c.k,~ln~, tEHNTr lonnu Ia 1