44 OLEOMARGARINE AN 13 BUTTERINE. 



that it competes with another and may reduce the price of an article of food. Evidently the 

 present law has no such characteristics. It is not intended to prohibit any branch of industry 



or to prevent competition. Its sole object is to regulate and control the quality of a certain 

 article of food in the interest of ; the health of the people; and if the Legislature, knowing the 

 difficulty of guarding against the watering or other adulterations of milk, deem it best to fix a 

 standard of richness, I think this is within their power." 



A leading lawyer, who has made a special study of oleomargarine legislation, said last even- 

 ing: " There are three important points decided by this opinion of Judge Learned, indorsed 

 by the Court of Appeals, thai: are worthy of consideration. These are : First That the Leg- 

 islature has the power to prevent the sale of unwholesome food and drink for human beings. 

 Second That the Legislature is the judge of what is unwholesome, and the courts can only 



declare a law relating to food and drink unconstitutional when the Legislature has exceeded its 

 powers to such an extent that it appears on the face of the statute. No evidence can be given 



.'to prove that the forbidden articles are not unwholesome; and third That those who deal in 

 dairy products must see that they do not violate the law. They cannot prove for any purpose 



that they were ignorant of the fact that they were selling imitation goods. In the Cipperly 

 -case the evidence showed not only that the man did not know he was selling adulterated milk, 



but tha the milk was sold just as it came from the cow. There could not be a stronger case 

 on the want of knowledge than this. This opinion declares that want of knowledge of the law 

 is no defense. Now, the query is a logical one : If the Legislature has the power to fix a stand- 

 ard for milk, why has it not a similar power with regard to butter ?" 



Philip Laracy, of No. 327 Tenth Avenue, and Henry Rothman, of No. 564 Eleventh Avenue, 

 grocers, were arraigned yesterday before Justice Duffy at the Jefferson Market Police Court, 

 ior selling oleomargarine as butter. They were held in $200 bail, the former electing to be 

 tried in the Court of General Sessions and the latter in Special Sessions. 



AN IMPORTANT PENNSYLVANIA DECISION. 



One of the most important decisions with regard to the constitutionality of legislative ac- 

 tion for the protection of publi* health that has recently been made was that rendered by Judge 

 J. W. Simonton, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of the Commonwealth against 

 W. L. Powell, a Harrisburg grocer. This tradesman, confident that the prohibitive act passed 

 May 21, 1885, would be declared unconstitutional on appeal, deliberately sold butterine as an 

 article of food. He was arrested and tried in the Court of Quarter Sessions in Dauphin County 

 upon an indictment based upon Section I of the act, which reads : 



" No person, firm, or corporate body shall manufacture out of any oleaginous substance, 

 or any compound of the same other than that produced from pure, unadulterated milk or 

 cream from the same, or any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, nor sell or offer for sale, 

 or have in his possession with intent to sell the same, as an article of food." 



It was agreed for the purposes of the trial that the defendant sold to the prosecuting wit- 

 ness, in the city of Harrisburg, July 10, 1885, as an article of food, two original packages, con- 

 taining an oleaginous substance and compound other than that produced from pure, unadulter- 

 ated milk and cream from the same, and designed to take the place of butter, and that these 

 packages were sold as butterine, and not as butter. It was further agreed that the defendant 

 had 100 pounds of this substance in his possession, and intended to sell the same, and the 

 identity of the packages produced in court was admitted by the defendant. With this agree- 

 ment and admission the Commonwealth rested, and the defendant endeavored to introduce 

 expert testimony as to the wholesomeness of the compound. To this objection was made, and 

 it was excluded. The case was then submitted to the jury, a verdict of guilty rendered, and 

 the defendant moved for a new trial and an arrest of judgment. 



The points made by the defense were : First, that the act under which he was indicted was 

 unconstitutional, per se; second, that the evidence offered and rejected was relevant to the 

 question of its constitutionality, as applied to the special facts of this case. 



After citing numerous precedents showing that in a suit to declare a law unconstitutional 

 the burden of proof is on the defendant, and that the Legislature may exercise all powers that 

 are properly legislative, Judge Simonton's opinion continues : 



" We have carefully considered the suggestions and arguments offered by his (defendant's) 

 able counsel, intended to show that the power to enact a statute such as the one in question, 

 which, as they contend, deprives the defendant of his facilities and takes from him his means 

 of livelihood, is excepted out of the general grant of the legislative power contained in the Con- 

 stitution, by the express or implied limitations or prohibitions of the Bill of Rights of the body 

 of the Constitution itself. But, assuming for the present that the statute is in its nature legis- 

 lative, we are wholly unable to find any limitation or prohibition which can be successfully 

 pleaded against its enactment or enforcement. P"or, while the Bill of Rights does declare that 



