Commissioner of Agriculture. 83- 



imitations of dairy batter, bat to take a further and bolder 

 step, and by absolutely prohibiting the manufacture or sale of 

 any article which could be used as a substitute for it, however 

 openly and fairly the character of the substitute might be 

 avowed and published, to drive the substituted article from the 

 market, and protect those engaged in the manufacture of dairy 

 products, against the competition of cheaper substances, capable 

 of being applied to the same uses, as articles of food. 



The learned counsel for the respondent frankly meets 

 this view, and claims in his points as he did orally upon the argu- 

 ment, that even if it were certain that the sole object of the 

 enactment was to protect the dairy industry in this State 

 against the substitution of a cheaper article made from cheaper 

 materials, this would not be beyond the power of the legisla- 

 ture. This we think is the real question presented in the case. 

 Conceding that the only limits upon the legislative power of the 

 State are those imposed by the State Constitution and that of 

 the United States, we are called upon to determine whether 

 or not those limits are transgressed by an enactment of this 

 description. These limitations upon legislative power are neces- 

 sarily very general in their terms, but are at the same time 

 very comprehensive. The Constitution of the State provides 

 (article I, section 1), that no member of this State shall be dis- 

 franchised, or deprived of any of the rights and privileges se- 

 cured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or 

 the judgment of his peers. Section 6 of article 1 provides that 

 no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property 

 without due process of law. And the fourteenth amendment to 

 the Constitution of the United States provided that ' no State 

 shall mate or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 

 or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any 

 State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without 

 due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction 

 the equal protection of the laws.' These constitutional safe- 

 guards have been so thoroughly discussed in recent cases that it 

 would be superfluous to do more than refer to the conclusions 



