State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 29 July 1904
• Docket Number: 14,001 - (215)
• Citation: 100 N.W. 641,93 Minn. 155
• Parties: STATE v. M. D. WILLIAMS
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

100 N.W. 641

93 Minn. 155

STATE v. M. D. WILLIAMS

Nos. 14,001 - (215)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 29, 1904

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Mower county, Kingsley, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and conviction of the offense of exposing for sale impure boiled linseed oil. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Adulteration of Linseed Oil.

Laws 1897, p. 403, c. 217, § 1, provides that no person or corporation shall manufacture or sell any linseed oil unless the same answers a chemical test for purity recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia; and section 2 provides for making and stamping packages in which the commodity is sold and that it shall be sold under its true name, and in vessels bearing proper stamps, describing it as pure linseed oil raw or pure linseed oil boiled. This statute was subsequently amended by Laws 1901, p. 549, c. 332, providing that no person or corporation should manufacture or sell any linseed oil unless the same answered to a certain described test, but no reference was made in the amendment to raw or boiled oil. Held, that the failure to specifically include boiled linseed oil in the amendment did not indicate an intention that the statute should apply to raw oil only, but that the sale of boiled oil not complying with the required standard is a violation of the statute.

Police Power.

Laws 1897, p. 403, c. 217, § 1, as amended by Laws 1901, p 549, c. 332, prohibiting the sale of linseed oil not answering to a certain chemical test, is within the police power.

Edward H. Crooker, for appellant.

The statute under which the complaint is made, especially if it applies to boiled linseed oil, is unconstitutional and void as being an improper and unauthorized exercise of the police power of the state, for the following reasons: (1) Because its effect would be to deprive defendant of his liberty and property without due process of law, and it is therefore in contravention of section 7 of article 1 of the state constitution. (2) Because its effect would be to deprive defendant of his property without due compensation therefor, first paid or secured, and it is therefore in contravention of section 13 of article 1 of the state constitution. (3) Because its effect would be to deprive defendant of his liberty and property without due process of law, and it is therefore in contravention of section 1 of article 14 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States. (4) Because its effect would be to deny to defendant the equal protection of the law, and it would therefore be class legislation, and in contravention of the state constitution, and also of the constitution of the United States. (5) Because it is not, either by its title, or by its provisions, or by any effect which can be given to it, an act for the protection of the public health, morals, or safety, and it is not within the police powers of the legislature to enact, or of the courts to enforce. (6) Because it attempts to prohibit, not the use of certain adulterants or impurities in boiled linseed oil, nor even only such adulterants or impurities as may be deemed or found to be injurious, but all adulterants and impurities -- that is, all substances foreign or extraneous to flaxseed -- and it is a fact of common knowledge, of which the court must take judicial notice, and it also appears by the evidence in this case, that the introduction of some adulterant or impurity -- some substance foreign and extraneous to and not extracted from flaxseed -- into boiled linseed oil, as a drier, is not only not injurious, but is absolutely necessary in order to prepare it for the use to which it is ordinarily put. (7) Because the act, as construed by the state dairy and food commissioner, and as attempted to be enforced against the defendant in this case, would have the effect of prohibiting the manufacture and sale, within the state, of boiled linseed oil manufactured according to processes, and containing only such ingredients as are recognized in the trade generally, and also by the best scientific authority, as processes producing boiled linseed oil of superior quality, and as ingredients which increase the value and utility of the oil. (8) Because its effect would be to prohibit the manufacture and sale, within the state, of boiled linseed oil which, when used for the purposes to which boiled linseed oil is ordinarily put, produces good results, and the use of which in no way can affect the public health, morals, safety, or welfare. (9) Because its effect would be entirely to prohibit the manufacture or sale within the state of raw linseed oil. (10) Because the second section of the act deprives dealers in linseed oil, other than manufacturers, of the right to sell linseed oil under their own brand or name.

The Minnesota cases establish the following propositions: That every person has a right to engage in any lawful calling without restriction, except that in certain callings which are closely related to the public health, morals or safety the legislature has the right to impose such regulations and restrictions as are reasonably necessary for public protection (medical board and patent medicine cases). That the legislature cannot wholly prohibit the manufacture or sale of a useful article of food or medicine (patent medicine, lard, cottolene, baking-powder and preservative cases), unless the same resembles in appearance and flavor and is intended to be used as a substitute for a superior article in common use so that it is necessarily a vehicle for fraud and imposition on the public, and there is reasonable ground for the belief that such fraud and imposition can be prevented only by prohibition (oleomargarine case). That in the handling of compounds similar in appearance and used for a similar purpose, but compounded of different ingredients, the legislature may enact such regulations as to enable the public to ascertain the true character of the article and purchase only such as they prefer, provided that such regulations do not amount to prohibition (lard, cottolene and baking-powder cases). That the regulations imposed must be such as to accomplish the object in view, and if t...