*1 TERM,° 1887. for Parties. Counsel v. POWELL PENNSYLVANIA. THE
ERROR TO SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. — Argued 4, 1888.
No. 914. January 9, Decided April 1888. designed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution inter- police power by protec- fere the exercise of the with State for the health, fraud, prevention preservation tion of and the of the public morals. prohibition substances, of the manufacture out of or out of compound produced thereof other than that from unadulterated milk milk, or cream from unadulterated of an article to take the of butter or cheese unadulterated milk or milk; prohibition upon cream from unadulterated or the the manufacture cheese, imitation or adulterated selling butter or or sell, offering having possession same, for intent article,of power a exercise the State of the lawful protect, police public regulations, the health. butter, oleomargarine, Whether the manufacture imitation of the kind 21, Pennsylvania .May described the act of the Penn, 1885, 22, 25,1 p. is, be, (Laws of No. conducted in such way, secrecy, ordinary inspection, skill or with as to baffle such public danger require, whether it involves such health as to for protection people, suppression business, of the the entire of the n regulation permit rather than its manner as to the manufacture ingredients, and sale of articles of that that do not contain class noxious questions public policy, belong legislative are of fact and of to'the department to determine. 21, 1885, Pennsylvania May protection The Statute of “for the health, prevent dairy products and to adulteration of and fraud persons jurisdiction in the sale thereof” neither denies to within the equal protection laws; deprives persons the State the nor of their compensation required by law; without and is not re- pugnant respects to the Fourteenth Amendment to the these Constitu- tion the United States. The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. I>. T. Watson and Mr. D. Gilbert for I/yman plaintiff in error. Mr. W. B. was with them on the brief. Rodgers
Mr. Mae in error. Mr. A. 11. for Wayne defendant Veagh Wintersteen him was with on the brief. PENNSYLVANIA.
Opinion of the Court. Hablan delivered the of the court. Me. Justice opinion of error review This writ up judgment brings *2 of'a Court Pennsylvania, sustaining validity Supreme Commonwealth, to the manufacture statute relating called butter. of what is md sale commonly oleomargarine to him contends, in error denies . at plaintiff judgment, claimed under the Four- certain privileges specially n to the. Constitution of the United States. teenth Amendment one acts of the General Assembly Pennsylvania, By and entitled “An act to 22, 1878, prevent May approved and the other in sale of butter and cheese,” deception and entitled “An act for the 24, 1888, protec- May approved in of butter' and to sales tion of dairymen, prevent deception made for the was cheese,” stamping, branding, provision in manufactured articles or mode, or marking, prescribed imitation of butter or not cheese, in semblance or substances and not made of the exclusively dairy, product legitimate or oil, lard, fat, milk or but into which cream, produced or entered as a or into cream, from milk component part, been introduced to melted butter or oil thereof had which any 1878, of cream. Laws 87; p. -take Pennsylvania, place 43. 1883, p. we failed
But this accomplish legislation, presume, For, act, intended by by legislature. subsequent objects and which took effect 1, 1885, 21, 1885, July May approved health and An act for the (cid:127)entitled protection “ and fraud the sale adulteration dairy products prevent No. 22, 25, Laws of thereof,” Pennsylvania, p. : other as follows among things,
provided, “ shall 1. That no or firm, body person, corporate Section substance or manufacture out of any any compound n ofthe other than that from unadulterated same, produced milk or of cream from the article to take same, any of butter or cheese unadulterated (cid:127)the or cream from the or of imitation or adulter- same, milk any nor shall sell or offer for or have cheese, ated butter same, their with intent to sell the as an his, her, possession, of food. article TERM, 1887.
680’ Opinion of the Court. “ - substance, article or of such sale Every Section made after this this act, first section is prohibited unlawful and to be declared take effect, hereby act shall of the courts in maintained any shall and no action be. void, for the sale of contract any to recover any this State such article substance. firm, or corporate company, Every person, 3.' Section for sale or offer manufacture, sell, expose who shall body her, intent to sell, or their his, or have possession substance, which is and sale of the manufacture prohibited forfeit offence, act, shall, of this the first section re which shall- be hundred dollars, of one the sum pay name in the with costs coverable suing person are law recovera like amounts as debts of Commonwealth shall be recovered, so when sum, paid one-half which ;ble for the use county treasurer county proper half to the and the other per which suit is person brought *3 shall or be commenced such a at whose instance sons suit recovery. prosecuted “ violates the who provisions Every person Section of a be deemed misde this shall act, the first section of guilty a fine of not conviction shall meanor, punished upon n than three hundred, nor more dollars, than one hundred less less than ten nor in for not the county jail by imprisonment or both such fine more- than imprisonment thirty days, for for one offence, for the first year imprisonment offence.” subsequent the last statute, in under indicted,
The error plaintiff Quarter Sessions of the Peace in the Court of Dauphin in the first count Pennsylvania. charge County, “ food, an article of as sold, that he is, indictment unlawfully of an article each, cases, two five pounds containing unadulterated from to take the of butter pure, produced place aforesaid, as sold, article so milk cream from the said milk, sub- of certain an article manufactured out oleaginous being than that other produced stances and of the same compounds said article milk, from from unadulterated milk or cream butter.” In imitation an sold, so as aforesaid, being v. PENNSYLVANIA. Opinion of the Court. is that he had in his count the unlawfully
second charge pos- same, food, intent to sell the as an article of 'a session, hundred of imitation de- butter, one viz., pounds, quantity, from unadul- to take the of butter produced pure, signed from manufactured out of same, milk or cream terated of the same other substances, certain compounds n same.” from milk or from the cream that the defend-1 trial, It was the purposes agreed, sold to the 10, 1885,.in on ant, city Harrisburg, July two as an article of witness, original pack prosecuting that such count; kind first described pack ages not as butter butterine, as were sold and pro ages bought from milk or cream from unadulterated duced unadul pure, at the time was, milk and that each of said ; terated packages the words, Butter,” marked with “Oleomargarine line, in Homan letters half lid and side in a straight inch long. had was also that the defendant It agreed possession with intent to sell article, hundred of the same one pounds as an of food. article
This was the case made the Commonwealth. Blanck defendant then offered to Prof. prove by Hugo that he saw manufactured the article sold to the prosecuting that it was witness; fats; made animal the article wholesome, manufacture was clean and process differ- the same elements as butter, only containing dairy con- article ence between them that the manufactured being tained a smaller substance known proportion fatty in the that this butter butterine; butterine existed dairy of from three seven the manu- cent, proportion per *4 in in increased’ factured article a smaller was proportion, this latter the introduction' milk and that cream; by the article all elements done, been contained having from cream butter from milk or unadulterated produced pure the same that the of butterine was slightly except percentage that flavor effect of butterine was to smaller; only give the butter and that had to do with its wholesome- nothing art!- that the manufactured ; ness substances TERM, 1887. “682 Opinion of Court. were cle identical tbiose from milk substantially produced and that the article cream; sold witness prosecuting awas wholesome and nutritious article in all óf respects as wholesome as butter from unadulterated . milk or cream from unadulterated milk.
The defendant also offered to that he was prove engaged in the in the of Harris- grocery provision business city sold him article was a burg, part large (cid:127)and valuable manufactured the 21st of quantity prior May, Í885, accordance with the laws of this relat- Commonwealth to the sale said article, manufacture and and so sold ing him; that for that business purpose prosecuting large investments him in the were made suitable purchase estate, real and in the erection proper buildings, pur- chase of the that in his necessary machinery ingredients; traffic in said if and, article he made profits; prevented large the value of his therein it, employed continuing property would be and he lost, means deprived entirely livelihood.
To each offer the Commonwealth objected upon ground that the evidence to be introduced was immaterial proposed and irrelevant.
The. of these was avowed to offers be: purpose proof To invention, show that the (1) article sold was new not an .adulteration of nor to the dairy injurious products, Health, but wholesome and nutritious as article of food, n andthat its manufacture and sale were conformity -acts of May 22, To show that 1878, May (2) the statute was un- founded, was prosecution constitutional, and, as not a lawful exercise police power, also, because it defendant lawful use of deprived his property, faculties, liberty, destroys without making compensation.”
The court sustained the to each and excluded offer, objection the evidence. An taken duly exception ruling the defendant.
A verdict of returned, and been motions guilty having arrest of been overruled, and for new trial judgment Having *5 v. 683 PENNSYLVANIA.
Opinion of the Court. was fine of one hundred dol- defendant the adjudged pay costs of bail to same in the lars prosecution, give pay and be until the ten days, custody judgment performed. the Court of the was affirmed by Supreme
That judgment Penn. St. 265. 114 State. is the in its case, by prin-
This
important aspects,
governed
v.
It is contended within liberty all provisions rights coming prives them and denies to law, due without process are secured laws; protection equal of the United to the Constitution Amendment Fourteenth States. is a that if this statute
It is necessary say legiti scarcely of the State for mate exercise protec police power and for the health of tion of the prevention people, is, for it Amendment; inconsistent with that it is not fraud, is of this court that, settled doctrine organ government others, public ized for among preserving purpose, morals, it cannot divest itself of the health Fourteenth for those and that the objects; power provide to interfere with the exercise of was not Amendment designed 663; 123 U. S. Kansas, v. States. Mugler power 746, 751; 111 U. S. Co., Co. Crescent City Union Butchers’ ; 118 113 U. S. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, v. Connolly, Barbier S. 356. U. therefore, whether prohibition question, com- or out of substances, out
manufacture unadulterated than that other thereof produced from pound of an article from unadulterated milk, milk or cream un- from of .butter or cheese to take the place TERM, nn Opinion of the Court. milk or
adulterated cream unadulterated milk, the manufacture of imitation or adulter- upon prohibition ated butter or cheese, selling offering *6 sell, in with intent the same, as an possession having a article of is lawful exercise the State of the power health. protect, by police regulations, public The main advanced the defendant is that his proposition terms of all others in similar enjoyment upon equality of circumstances privilege pursuing ordinary calling of. - and trade, acquiring, holding, selling property, an essential his of. as liberty part rights property, the Fourteenth Amendment. The court as- guaranteed to this as sents sound general proposition embodying princi- it of constitutional law. But cannot that ple adjudge defendant’s defined, thus liberty property, have been the statute without infringed Pennsylvania, it have been enacted in that, may faith holding although good in for the its title, objects expressed namely, protect health and to the adulteration of prevent dairy prod- ucts and fraud in the sale it in has, thereof, no fact, real or substantial relation to those v. objects. Mugler Kansas, 123 U. S. 661. The court is unable to 623, affirm that this legis- lation has no real or substantial relation to such objects.
It will be in observed the offer the court below was to show that the articles the defendant by proof particular sold, in in those for sale, violation of the possession statute, in were, wholesome nutritious fact, articles of food. It is consistent with that offer that entirely indeed, that many, most kinds of butter in the market contain oleomargarine that are or become to health. ingredients may injurious n courtcannot of which it say, take anything may judicial that such is not the fact. Under the cognizance, circum stances in disclosed record, in obedience to settled rules of constitutional it construction, must be assumed that such is fact. “Every possible Chief Justice presumption,” Waite said, for the court Fund speaking 99 Sinking Cases, U. S. “is favor of the 700, 718, of a and this validity statute, continues until the is shown a rational contrary beyond doubt. 'v. PENNSYLVANIA. 685 ,
Opinion Court. cannot encroach on the-do -branch government One without institu our main of another danger. safety no on small a strict observance of this tions depends degree also, Fletcher v. 6 See, Peck, Cranch, 87, 128; rule.” salutary, v. Woodward, Living 625; Dartmouth Wheat. College S. U. ston Darlington, the manufacture or imitation Whether oleomargarine, kind, described con- statute, is, be,
butter, skill, or with as to ducted such way, secrecy, it whether involves such baffle inspection, ordinary danger health as to for the to the public require, protection entire than its business, rather suppression people, in such manner as to the manufacture permit regulation that do of articles class not contain noxious sale ingre- of fact and of dients, are questions public policy belong determine. And as dees department legislative *7 the face of the or from facts of statute, not any appear upon must the court take that judicial infringes- cognizance, the fundamental the law, secured by legislative'deter- rights It those is conclusive the courts. mination of questions upon their to not a of functions conduct of is investigations part into of and to facts questions public policy merely, entering embodied in will, statutes, or frustrate the sustain legislative to or its determi- as they may happen approve .disapprove of The which the has nation such questions. power legislature the welfare is and the discre- to general very great, promote of in the tion which the has, department government means to that While both end, of is very large. employment its must not discretion be so exercised as to its power of fundamental the life,-liberty, property:' impair which our institu- and while, according principles upon “ rest, the idea that one be to tions man very compelled or the of hold means or material life, any right living, of at mere will of life, another, essential to the the enjoyment to intolerable in seems be where freedom prevails, country ” of in of as the essence cases itself; slavery being yet, many mere no administration, the is responsibility purely political, to the ultimate tribunal of the appeal lying except judg- TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. in- the of exercised either ment, pressure public opinion Yick Wo. U. S. Hopkins, 'means of suffrage.” . class. us latter The case before belongs fullest as we must investigation, upon Pennsylvania, reasonable as must grounds, conclusively presume, has determined that record, from the assumed prohibi for sale, to> tion of offering having possession food, of article out of manufactured sell, purposes or- other those substances compounds produced or cream from unadulterated from unadulterated milk milk,, butter from milk unadulterated take milk, will unadulterated cream promote public- frauds the sale of such If articles. all health, prevent is that it is said of this or un unwise, that can be legislation to those whole necessarily oppressive manufacturing selling their article must some oleomargarine, appeal ballot-box, not to or to be to the legislature, judiciary. interfere com latter cannot without usurping powers to another mitted department government. if defendant, the statute-
It is behalf argued, valid is sustained as a exercise legislative power, question in the the destruction the- stands then way nothing off of the constitutional guarantees legislative department off But abuse property. possibility liberty existence. That does disprove possi- legislative power that are conceded to> exists even reference powers bility is bound not to Besides, exist. department give judiciary forbidden enactments that are effect plainly statutory th¿ has said, court one- This always Constitution. duty, for, from the extreme necessity avoiding- apart delicacy; *8 of the between branches conflicts government,, coordinate difficult to determine whether state or often national,-it within the to or whether such enactments are granted powers if the Nevertheless, the possessed by incompati- legislature; clear of the statute is or Constitution bility palpable,, And such would be-' the courts must to the former. effect give state the- of the court if the under pre- duty legislature, or the.- morals, health,- tence public .guarding public POWELL v. PENNSYLVANIA. 687' Field, should invade the of life, or safety, liberty, prop- other secured or law of land. rights, erty, supreme that the The statute is to the clause of' objection repugnant, the Fourteenth Amendment the denial the State- forbidding within its jurisdiction any person equal protection is' laws, untenable. The statute under the samp places to like restrictions, all who burdens, subjects penalties or or manufacture, sell, offer for keep possession the articles embraced sell, thus prohibitions; recogniz those- preserving ing principle equality among in the same business. 113 Barbier v. engaged Connolly, U. S. Soon v. 27; U. S. Missouri Hing Crowley, 703; Humes, Co. U. S. 512, Railway Pacific It is also contended that the act of is in con-- 21, 1885, May flict with the Fourteenth Amendment in that the- deprives of his without that defendant compensation required law. This contention is without merit, as was held v. Kansas. Mugler the whole We are of is no case, there
Upon opinion in the and it is, therefore, judgment, error
Affirmed. Me. Justice Field dissenting. indicted,in error was one of the courts plaintiff anas article of food two cases of oleo-
Pennsylvania selling butter, each, five and was sen- margarine containing pounds a fine of one tenced hundred dollars. The case pay being was. State, taken to Court of the Supreme judgment and to review it court. affirmed, the case is to this brought under which the statute, conviction was had, on the 21st of on the went into effect passed May, first of It declares in That its first section: July following. firm,
no shall manufacture out of person, corporate body other’ substance, same, any oleaginous any compound from; from unadulterated milk cream produced butter or.' same, article to take from;- cheese unadulterated or cream milk, pure, cheese,. same, imitation or adulterated butter or *9 TERM, 1887. Field, Dissenting J. in his, for or have or their sale, her, nor shall or offer sell pos- same as an of food.” to sell the article session with intent a the act made violation of these In another section provi- a fine of not less than one a sions misdemeanor punishable three hundred, hundred more than nor dollars, by imprison- than ten or ment in for not less more thirty county jail offence, for the first or both fine and days, imprisonment one for offence. for year subsequent imprisonment, is not observed, The it is to act, prevent any and sale of article of oleo- in the manufacture deception off as butter made butter, or any attempt pass margarine milk The indicate that the act was or.cream. title would health, and to intended for the public pre- protection and fraud in the vent the sale adulteration dairy products, the act had thereof. It is that the draft of original probable that title was allowed to after' remain, such a purpose, Be this as it the act is one may, body pro- changed. sale, manufacture keeping hibiting as to its charac- no concealment 'article, attempted though is rested ter, Its nature, validity simply upon ingredients. of the Common- the fact that it has the legislature pleased that the shall be manufactured wealth to declare article limits. the trial the sold or for sale within its On kept n defendant offered to witnesses competent prove by article manufactured was ingredients perfectly composed nutritious as butter was wholesome and pro- healthy, as/ milk or But court refused to duced from cream. that it allow the on the was immaterial evidence, ground that the irrelevant. It was in its sufficient, judgment, legisla- had a of its ture to render act, disregard provisions passed offence. the article sold defendant also offered prove him valuable manufactured was a quantity large part in accordance 21, 1885, of the act of May prior passage manufac with the laws of the Commonwealth relating on also ture and this offer was article; sale of the rejected case is the same irrelevant. as immaterial and ground, received. had been if the to be considered as offered proof /therefore S. 183, Sco 112 U. Hill, County tland POWELL v. PENNSYLVANIA. Opinion-: Field, thus are
Two first, whether distinctly questions presented: can a State of a manufacture lawfully prohibit healthy *10 of nutritious article food and take the of place of of thé butter, substance, out any oleaginous compound from milk or and other same, cream, produced pure can, manufactured ? and, "when whether State second, its sale the the sale of an owner, without prohibit compensation in itself and which nutritious, article of has been food, healthy with its laws ? in accordance manufactured in are not the of the court These presented opinion questions and as 'here nevertheless stated, broadly they nakedly the and else. involved, indicate points precise nothing truly one would that it would be first suppose impressions TJpon matter for on the of the State, congratulation part science a means had been discovered which a of progress food could be new article of produced, equally healthy and less Avith, nutritious one than, already expensive existing, it Thanks and and for Avhich could be used as a substitute. be natural return for such a discov-' reAvardsAvouldseem to and the increase of the article the use the means ery, But not so encouraged. thought legislature thereby the enactment in the CommonAvealth Pennsylvania. By it declared that no article of food to take the question be manufactured out of other mat- butter shall that Avhichis milk or cream, ter than its limits or under be sold Avithin of fine kept penalty and imprisonment.
If first can be as it has answered, presented question I do affirmative, not see court, been by Avhy Avithin the to forbid" competency legislature equally and sale of new article of food, production though harmless ingredients, composed perfectly healthy nutritious its character or even forbid the manufacture ; articles food n'oAvin and sale of such as .use, prepared general extracts of beef condensed Avhenever it milk, like, fit to do in the matter see Avill so, constituting only asserted- reason for the enactment. The doctrine is nothing out of less than the competency prescribe cxxvn —44 vol. TERM,
(cid:127)'690' Field, different articles and nutritious food, healthy what,shall manufactured and sold limits, within its and what shall not be n thus manufactured and I sold. have that the always supposed of life was with the to seek accompanied gift right pro duce which. life can be all- preserved enjoyed, of others. I waysnot have encroaching upon equal rights that the to take all measures for the supposed right support life, are innocent in is an themselves, element of that freedom which American citizen claims as his birthright. I admit that previous adoption Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, of such validity was to be determined the constitution of legislation' State, and that its were tribunals the authoritative interpreters of its This court could exercise no meaning. appellate juris over the courts the state in matters of judgments diction local concern. Their such cases purely were judgments *11 final and conclusive. If the of the State thus sus legislation . tained was and could be found oppressive unjust, remedy about the in only subsequent legislation, brought through fluence of wiser views and a more on the enlightened policy From the structure of our dual part people. govern in which the United States exercise ment, such only powers are them to or Constitution, neces expressly delegated all others not to the States sarily implied, prohibited being to reserved them or to the mass respectively, people, great local interest were to state necessarily subject matters or and whether1-that was enacted, regulation, wisely unwisely it -wasnot under the which could considera come question tion of this court. The created the Constitu government tion was not for the of matters regulation purely n local in their character. The States no aid from required any to their domestic affairs. It external authority manage matters which affected all the States or which could only'for not be them in their individual or man managed capacity, that a embarrassment, aged only great difficulty and common Avas sue1 desired. general Only government of internal conferred as were, therefore, powers regulation to Avereessential the successful and efficient working POWELL v. PENNSYLVANIA. '691 Opinion: Meld, established, facilitate intercourse commerce government of different them, States, between to secure to people in the several States; re protection only equality the action of straints were the States as would placed upon conflict with its secure the fulfilment of authority, prevent and insure contract obligations, protection against punishment decree by legislative by retrospective legislation. By first section the Fourteenth which had Amendment, in the new conditions and out of necessities origin growing n late further war, restraints civil were placed power of the States in some of which sub particulars, disregard their action to this review court. That section is as jected follows: “ All born or naturalized the United persons States, are citizens of the subject jurisdiction thereof, United States of the State wherein reside. No State shall they make or enforce law which shall any abridge privileges immunities of citizens of the nor shall States; United State without life, deprive person liberty, property of law; due nor within its process deny any person juris- diction of the laws.” equal protection It is the clause that no State shall declaring deprive any of life, without due liberty, person process law,” case. This applies present provision found in the constitutions of States, all the and was de nearly of life and signed prevent arbitrary liberty, deprivation IAs said on a arbitrary spoliation property. occasion, former means can be taken, neither thereof in the course of enjoyment impaired, .the- except regu administration of / lar the law in the established tribunals. It *12 has been to secure the essen always to supposed every person conditions for tial is therefore pursuit happiness, be not to construed in a narrow or restricted sense. Ex parte S. U. 366. 339, Virginia, “ as thus is meant more By liberty,” used, something freedom from restraint or It means physical imprisonment. freedom not to but to do choose, wherever one merely go may such acts as he not inconsistent' best his interest may judge ' TERM, 1887. j.' Field,
with the
to follow such
others;
is,
equal rights
pur
suits as
be best
to his
and which
faculties,
will
may
adapted
him
to
As said
Court
give
by
highest enjoyment.
“
‘
of New
in
v.
the term
York,
Marx,
Appeals
People
liberty,’
as
is not
into a mere
protected' by
Constitution,
cramped
restraint of the
of the citizen,
freedom
physical
person
as
incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the
by
right
man to be free in the
of the faculties with which
enjoyment
he has been endowed
to
Creator,
by
subject only
restraints as are
for the
welfare,”
common
N. Y.
necessary
386; and
In matter
in
Jacobs:
again,
Liberty,
broad
as
serise,
understood in this
means the
country,
right
not
from actual
only
servitude, imprisonment,
freedom
but
in
restraint,
of one to use his
all lawful
faculties,
right
to live and work where he
to earn his
will,
livelihood
ways,
lawful
and to
lawful trade
voca
.any
calling,
pursue
”
tion.
(cid:127) Dissenting Opinion: J. - of of under the considera- of the act Pennsylvania the defendant was convicted Court of General tion. The by New York. The was affirmed the of conviction by Sessions decision and Court, General Term Supreme taken to the Court of where the was judg- Appeals, appeal court of ment was reversed. The was the opinion object of and effect not'to act, title, was, notwithstanding fraud, and supplement existing provisions against deception imitation of to manu- means of dairy butter, prohibit sale of facture and article which be used as a sub- could any stitute for however it, character fairly openly be to substitute avowed and drive the sub- might published, stituted article from market and those engaged protect in the manufacture of dairy products against competition of substances of to the same cheaper applied capable being uses as articles of food. At the on the of trial, argument taken such were the case, was if that, appeal, ground manufacture however sale of any compound, .or wholesome, as if it an article of was to take the that act made a' place butter, dairy and the court crime, is, said: result of the “The argument that if, in the 'a is discovered science, progress process beef tallow, lard, other preparing any oleaginous substance,; to a it it so as to render flavor, communicating palatable "serviceable nutri- substitute for butter, dairy equally tious and valuable, the article be at com- can small cost, which will within the paratively reach those who cannot afford the ban this butter, buy dairy statute is it. manu-. Whoever in the business of engages f crime; of a acturing selling prohibited product guilty must be industry those who could make a suppressed; livelihood it are of that deprived privilege; capital invested in the business must be and such of sacrificed, of the State as cannot butter people afford buy dairy must eat their bread unbuttered.” And after referring the state constitution, which that no member provides the State be shall disfranchised, be deprived secured citizen unless privileges thereof, TERM, Field, and to the the' or .the land, peers; judgment
the law no shall of life, declares that clause which’ person deprived *14 n liberty, property of due to the law; without process the Fourteenth Amendment of article of first section of the “ court said: These constitutional the Constitution, the Federal discussed recent cases been so have thoroughly safeguards more than refer to the con- to do it that' would superfluous reached, been have bearing upon question clusions which no is now these, proposition under consideration. Among now fundamental it is one of the than that settled more firmly citizen to American of adopt (cid:127)rights privileges not to the com- industrial lawful injurious follow such pursuit, to various decisions And, fit.” he see referring as may munity, one that which was liberty, among meaning of man “to exercise his embraces to right liberty right for the a lawful vocation and to follow support faculties to Who have say the court said: will temerity life,” not violated an enactment are constitutional these principles for branch of an industry which absolutely prohibits important reduce with another, that it may the sole reason competes human race? Measures for the food an article .of price If the to their kind even promoters. of this are dangerous of the absolute power support respondent argument for the branch industry one to of the prohibit can be which competes, with another, purpose protecting manufacturers, not the oleomargarine could sustained, why or control the influence obtain sufficient should power they n or sale of manufacture dairy councils, legislative prohibit to de- found then be wanting Would arguments 'products? such an act? under the Constitution monstrate invalidity The numbers both cases. engaged same in is the principle influencethe cannot question each side of the controversy to be secured intended are here. to all are what rights Equal limits to legislative of constitutional the establishment them.” tribunals enforce power, impartial n is, this decision, all this made to reasoning, answer of its in the exercise that'the act of was'passed Pennsylvania provide term power pólice power; meaning by PENNSYLVANIA'. Field,' J. . of the State. the .health people Undoubtedly,,this to all of a State extends regulations power affecting only but the health, order, morals, good safety society; class, but a law does fall under the necessarily police n.ot because it is under the- of such- regulations, passed pretence as in this false case, regulation, title, purporting pro tect the health and the adulteration of prevent dairy products, and fraud in the sale thereof. It must have its provisions which, relation to the some end to be If that- accomplished. is forbidden is not to the health or morals of the injurious if it does not disturb their people, menace their peace it derives no it a safety, validity by calling police health law. Whatever name it it is receive, less than' nothing and, interference unwarranted liberties . citizen. In the matter Jacobs, law passed '“ entitled An act to health improve by prohibiting *15 the manufacture of and tobacco cigars preparation any form tenement houses in certain and cases,- regulating use of tenement houses in certain cases.”. It the- prohibited manufacture of of tobacco in form cigars preparation any on floor or in floor in any any tenement part any if house, such floor or of such floor was part occupied by any as a home residence for the- person purpose living, sleep household ing, work and cooking, therein; doing any de-' dared that who was of a violation of person the. guilty viola-, act, or of caused another to commit such having person tion, should be deemed of a and misdemeanor, guilty punished- - a fine of not less than ten dollars more than one hun dred dollars, for not less than ten ór by imprisonment days more than six both such months, fine and or by imprisonment. The tenement house used had four floors and seven rooms on each and floor, each floor was occupied by family, living one. of the and its independently others, in one of the doing cooking rooms thus Jacobs was in one of his occupied. rooms engaged tobacco and preparing there was no making cigars, smell of tobacco in house that part room.' except For this violation of the act he was arrested. A writ o.f kabeas sued out in the court corpus below for his discharge TERM, Opinion: Held,
n wasdismissed at the term of the special Court. On Supreme to the General Term this order appeal was reversed, and the case'was taken to the Court of There the claim was Appeals. made that the this act in the exercise of legislature passed its but the court said in police answer: it is Generally power; for the to determine what laws and legislature are regulations needed to health and secure the protect com- public public fort and and while its measures safety; are in- calculated, tended, convenient, and these appropriate accomplish ends, the exercise of discretion is not to review .its subject courts. But must have some relation to these they ends. Under the mere guise police regulations, personal rights private cannot be invaded, and the property arbitrarily determination is not final and conclusive. If it legislature passes act' for the health and ostensibly public thereby destroys or takes of a away citizen, interferes property then it is for personal the courts to liberty, scrutinize the act see whether it relates to is convenient and really health. It appropriate matters not promote that public in the title to the or in act, may, body, declare that it is intended for the improvement public health. Such a declaration does not conclude the courts, and must determine the they fact declared and yet enforce the law.” And the court concluded an extended supreme consid- eration of the when a health subject that, law is by declaring in the courts as on challenged unconstitutional, the ground that it interferes with arbitrarily personal liberty private without due law, the court must be able process see that it has in fact some relation to the health, public health is the end aimed at, is-appropriate *16 to that and as it could not adapted' end; see that the law in the from question his trade in forbidding cigarmaker plying own' room in the tenement when allowed to house, follow it elsewhere, was to the it designed health, promote public pro- nounced the law unconstitutional and void. If the courts could not in such cases examine into the real character of the act, must the declaration of the as con- accept legislature the clusive, most valuéd of the citizen would be rights subject PENNSYLVANIA, v. Field, of a such the control of to arbitrary temporary majority the the bodies, instead being guarantees protected In the recent cases Kansas Constitution. prohibition it to after that the de this court, stating belonged legislative what to determine measures are primarily appro partment the for the the morals, or needful protection public priate “: or the added It does at all health, not safety, public public statute enacted follow that the ostensibly promotion ends is to be exertion of these accepted legitimate of the State. There are of limits necessity police powers cannot . . . The which beyond legislation rightfully go. misled, nor are form, are not bound mere to courts they at are under They mere are liberty. indeed, pretences.- — — look to at substance a solemn whenever duty things, whether the enter has tran upon inquiry legislature they If, the limits of therefore, scended a statute' authority. to have been enacted health,' protect public
purporting has morals, or no real or substan safety public or is a to those invasion of tial relation objects, palpable rights it the fundamental is the law, courts secured by duty^of effect to the Constitution.” thereby so give adjudge, U. S. 623, 661. Kansas, Mugler v. Court of Massachu Mayo, Watertown
In Supreme “The State, said: setts, the.police power speaking be invaded not under the- will law .allow rights for the health, of a regulation preservation police guise nuisance; threatened when against protection is not the real such object purpose appears will interfere to courts protect rights regulation It 109 Mass. would seem under the citizens.” of the States no should be constitutions permitted, of a to encroach under the police pretence regulation, to be the citizen intended secured of the just rights itas certain it is that no State can, Be this thereby. may, whatever, under guise impair any pretence law of the States fundamental United of the citizen neither be nor Were shall has declared destroyed abridged. which the Constitution so,
this protection *17 TERM, Field, Opinion; Dissenting J. of be be and the the citizen would lost, secure would rights of state which would subject legislatures, control be What such matters omnipotent. practically greater invasion of the citizen can be conceived, an him from article of conceded to food, prohibit producing out nutritious, be substances, healthy designated themselves free from deleterious ? The any ingredients prohi- an of food extends to manufacture of article out of bition not substances, same, any oleaginous compounds from milk or to take cream, butter cheese. There are substances many oleaginous vegeta- world, ble as well as animal besides milk and but cream, out of none of them shall citizen of the United States the limits of be within Pennsylvania permitted produce sueh article food out of public consumption. Only milk cream shall that be article made, notwithstand- its the vast means for furnished ing production vege- well table as as the animal The full force kingdom. will doctrine asserted be if the extent is consid- apparent be ered to which it may applied. prohibition may extended to the manufacture sale of other .articles articles raiment fuel, even of objects convenience. there is no Indeed, fabric the text- product, ure or of which the not ingredients prescribe the manufacture and sale of all similar by inhibiting articles not of the same materials. composed
The answer the second is question conclusive equally the decision of the court. In against sale of prohibiting the article which had been manufactured defendant to the laws of the State, pursuant legislature necessarily its value. If the article destroyed could not be mercantile used without to the health of the injury would community, be the case if had diseased, become its perhaps sale might be. the article only itself prohibited be de- might ' But not this stroyed. case. Here the article was in no nutritious, healthy respect injuriously affecting health of one. It was manufactured to the laws pursuant , of the State. I do think not, therefore, the State could forbid v. PENNSYLVANIA. Field, to the owner. not without compensation its or use; sale clearly use and restraints its oí sale against improper *18 Regulations be made with -re as made, could they may undoubtedly its usé kinds of to all prohibition property; spect As I less confiscation. said sale nothing Barte with intoxicat 18 Wall. reference to Iowa, 129, 137, v. meyer have I to this I so with say ing property, liquors, reference when of the State no regulate doubt power does amount destruction of such regulation in an article it. The right right property property to sell and of such article as well involves right dispose owner declares that it. act which use enjoy Any .con it, sell it nor nor' use and it, shall neither enjoy dispose it, due fiscates him of his without process depriving State law. Against any arbitrary legislation by Fourteenth Amendment But prohibi affords protection. (cid:127) different tion for use is of sale way any quite so from of the sale or use as to regulation thing protect I health morals of the The fault community.” find this of the court head is opinion on distinction between ignores regulation prohibition. Supreme No. 1303. 'Error Pennsylvania,
Walker the State of Pennsylvania. January Court of Argued 9, 1888. Mr. April opinion Decided delivered Harlan Justice differ, questions in this presented the court. case do not respect, material those determined in Penn- Powell v.' . just decided. sylvania, in that principles announced case require necessarily judgment affirmance of the below.
Affirmed. Mr. Field Justice dissented. D. T.
Mr. Watson Mr. B. Rodgers W. error. plaintiffs Wayne Mr. McVeagli for in error. defendant