Commissioner of Agriculture. 87 



The exercise of such power, as we have seen, would be a viola- 

 tion of the inalienable right of man to procure healthy and 

 nutritious food, by which life may be preserved and enjoyed. 

 It would be an interference with the liberty of the citizen, which 

 is not necessary to the protection of others or the public health — 

 would be an invasion of his personal rights." 



In People ex rel. Moxley v. Pease, 30 Chicago Legal News, 277, 

 the Superior Court held: 



'• The Legislature may make laws for the protection of the 

 public health, good order, good morals and the safety of society, 

 and may pass any reasonable regulations for the manufacture 

 and sale of both butter and butterine, but it was not the right 

 or power to pass unreasonable or unjust regulations or pro- 

 hibitory laws as to either. It cannot prohibit the manufacture 

 or sale of wholesome or nutritious articles of food either directly 

 or under the guise of regulatory acts. Wherever it appears in 

 the act itself or aliunde that the object, purpose, or intent of the 

 act is to prohibit the manufacture or sale of wholesome articles 

 of food and not to regulate their manufacture or sale in the in- 

 terest of the public, we hold the act in question to be invalid." 



In People of the State of New York v. Buffalo Fish Company, 30 

 Misc.. 13d. an action was brought to recover penalties under pro- 

 visions of the Fisheries, Game and Forest Laws. Upon de- 

 murrer the constitutionality of that act was raised. The act 

 under question made it a misdemeanor for any person to possess, 

 and imposed a penalty for possessing, during certain seasons of 

 the vear, any of certain fresh water fish. It was held at Special 

 Term to be unconstitutional as it was not limited to fish in a 

 decayed or injurious physical condition. The court said, among 

 other things, page 138: 



" It is conceded, of course, that if these fish were diseased, or 

 had remained exposed to the elements until they were unfit for 

 food, and constituted a menace to the public health, the State 

 would have the right to interpose its police powers, and prevent 

 the sale." 



The Appellate Division in affirming this case adopted the 



