Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/94590/weaver-vs-palmer-brothers-co
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:36:34+00:00

Document:
1. Legislative determinations are entitled to great weight, but it is always open to interested parties to show that the legislature has transgressed the limits of its power. P. 270 U. S. 410 .
2. Invalidity of a legislative act may be shown by things that may be judicially noticed, or by facts established by evidence, the burden being on the attacking party to establish the invalidating facts. P. 270 U. S. 410 .
3. A state law (Pa.Ls.1923, c. 802) forbidding the use, in comfortables, of shoddy, even when sterilized, is so far arbitrary and unreasonable that it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 270 U. S. 410 , 270 U. S. 415 .
4. Without considering whether the mere failure of the Act to prohibit the use of other filling materials is sufficient to invalidate the prohibition of the use of shoddy as a violation of the equal protection clause, the number and character of the things permitted to be used in such manufacture properly may be taken into account in deciding whether the prohibition of shoddy is a reasonable and valid regulation or is arbitrary and violative of the due process clause. P. 270 U. S. 412 .
5. Such a prohibition cannot be sustained, as a health measure, in face of evidence showing that shoddy, even when composed of second-hand materials, is rendered harmless by sterilization, and in face of permission in the same Act to use numerous other kinds of materials if sterilized when second-hand. P. 270 U. S. 411 .
6. Nor can such prohibition be sustained as a measure to prevent deception, since deception may be avoided by adequate regulations. P. 270 U. S. 414 .
7. Constitutional guaranties cannot be made to yield to mere convenience. P. 270 U. S. 415 .
8. Every opinion of the Court is to be read with regard to the facts of the case and the question actually decided. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 , distinguished. P. 270 U. S. 414 .
The question for decision is whether the provision purporting absolutely to forbid the use of shoddy in comfortables violates the due process clause or the equal protection clause. The answer depends on the facts of the case. Legislative determinations express or implied are entitled to great weight, but it is always open to interested parties to show that the legislature has transgressed the limits of its power. Penna. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393 , 260 U. S. 413 . Invalidity may be shown by things which will be judicially noticed ( Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59 , 223 U. S. 64 ) or by facts established by evidence. The burden is on the attacking party to establish the invalidating facts. See Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352 , 230 U. S. 452 .
Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, supra, 223 U. S. 64 . This is well illustrated by the Powell case, compared with Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1 . Every opinion is to be read having regard to the facts of the case and the question actually decided. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 19 U. S. 399 . The facts clearly distinguish this case from the Powell case. There it was assumed that most kinds of oleomargarine in the market were or might become injurious to health. Here it is established that sterilization eliminates the dangers, if any, from the use of shoddy. As against that fact, the provision in question cannot be sustained as a measure to protect health, and the fact that the Act permits the use of numerous materials, prescribing sterilization if they are second-hand, also serves to show that the prohibition of the use of shoddy, new or old, even when sterilized, is unreasonable and arbitrary.
The constitutional guaranties may not be made to yield to mere convenience. Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, ante, p. 270 U. S. 230 . The business here involved is legitimate and useful, and, while it is subject to all reasonable regulation, the absolute prohibition of the use of shoddy in the manufacture of comfortables is purely arbitrary, and violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590 , 244 U. S. 596 ; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 ; Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U. S. 504 .
If the Legislature of Pennsylvania was of opinion that disease is likely to be spread by the use of unsterilized shoddy in comfortables, I do not suppose that this Court would pronounce the opinion so manifestly absurd that it could not be acted upon. If we should not, then I think that we ought to assume the opinion to be right for the purpose of testing the law. The legislature may have been of opinion further that the actual practice of filling comfortables with unsterilized shoddy gathered from filthy floors was widespread, and this again we must assume to be true. It is admitted to be impossible to distinguish the innocent from the infected product in any practicable way when it is made up into the comfortables. On these premises, if the legislature regarded the danger as very great and inspection and tagging as inadequate remedies, it seems to me that, in order to prevent the spread of disease, it constitutionally could forbid any use of shoddy for bedding and upholstery. Notwithstanding the broad statement in Schlesinger v. Wisconsin the other day, I do not suppose that it was intended to overrule Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192 , and the other cases to which I referred there.
It is said that there was unjustifiable discrimination. A classification is not to be pronounced arbitrary because it goes on practical grounds and attacks only those objects that exhibit or foster an evil on a large scale. It is not required to be mathematically precise and to embrace every case that theoretically is capable of doing the same harm. "If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied." Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373 , 236 U. S. 384 . In this case, as in Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, I think that we are pressing the Fourteenth Amendment too far.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.