Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

(— Wis., 214 N. W. 369.)

JOHN F. JELKE COMPANY, Respt.,

V.

J. Q. EMERY, State Dairy and Food Commissioner, Appt.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Food, § 9-protection of one industry against another.

1. The legislature cannot, for the purpose of protecting the dairy industry against competition, prohibit the manufacture and sale of oleomar

garin.

[See annotation on this question beginning on page 474.]

Constitutional law, § 779- prohibition of sale of food - police power. 2. Prohibiting the sale of a healthful, nutritious food can be justified only upon the ground that it is necessary in order to protect the public health, public morals, public safety, prevent fraud, or promote the public welfare.

[See 6 R. C. L. 214; 2 R. C. L. Supp. 64.]

Evidence, § 64 judicial notice

healthfulness of oleomargarin. 3. Courts take judicial notice of the fact that oleomargarin is a healthful, nutritious food.

[See 15 R. C. L. 1130; 3 R. C. L. Supp. 540.]

Food, § 9-prohibition of sale of oleomargarin.

4. The prohibition of the manufacture and sale of uncolored oleomargarin is unconstitutional.

[See 11 R. C. L. 1114.] Constitutional law, § 1- right to disregard Constitution.

5. The Constitution is the mandate

of a sovereign people to its servants and representatives, and no one of them has a right to ignore or disregard its mandates.

[See 6 R. C. L. 72; 2 R. C. L. Supp. 15; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 317.] Courts, § 77 - duty to pass on constitutionality of statute.

6. In a doubtful case, the final responsibility of passing upon the constitutionality of a statute rests upon the courts.

[See 6 R. C. L. 71, 72; 2 R. C. L. L. Supp. 317.] Supp. 15; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 377; 5 R. C.

Courts, 83-looking beyond de§ clared intent of legislature.

7. When the principal purpose of a statute is to advantage one class of citizens to the disadvantage of others, courts will look behind even the declared intent of the legislature, and relieve citizens against oppressive acts, where the primary purpose is not the protection of the public health, safety, and morals.

[See 6 R. C. L. 242.]

[ocr errors]

APPEAL by defendant from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County (Hoppmann, J.) in favor of plaintiffs in consolidated actions brought to enjoin defendant from enforcing a statute prohibiting the manufacture and sale of oleomargarin. Affirmed.

Statement by Rosenberry, J.: Injunction. The plaintiff John F. Jelke Company is a manufacturer of oleomargarine, with its principal place of business and factory in Chicago, Ill. It sells oleomargarine to wholesalers and retailers in the state of Wisconsin. The plaintiff Wisconsin Food Products Company is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling oleomargarine, having its factory and place of business at Jefferson, Wis. The plaintiff Hanley & Murphy Company is a corporation engaged in the wholesale grocery business, and having its place of business at Janesville, Wis. It sells oleomargarine at wholesale in the city of Janesville and in the territory surrounding Janesville. The plaintiff Charles Petri is a retail grocer, whose place of business is in Milwaukee, Wis. He sells oleomargarine at retail. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the enforcement by the dairy and food commissioner of chapter 279 of the Laws of 1925. The four actions were begun in order that every phase of the issue might be presented. They were subsequently consolidated and tried as a single action.

The complaint sets forth the history of oleomargarine, the different types of oleomargarine, and the various processes that are employed in the manufacture of oleomargarine. It is alleged that oleomargarine is a wholesome food product, that in its manufacture and sale in Wisconsin all state and federal laws and regulations are complied with, and that the sale of oleomargarine is free from fraud. It sets out chapter 279 of the Laws of 1925, and alleges that it violates both the state and federal Constitution; that it is unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive, and discriminatory, and it denies to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the law; that it is an unlawful interference with interstate com

merce; that it takes property without due process of law; and that it is class legislation.

The answer put in issue matters alleged in the complaint, except the allegations as to the history of oleomargarine and the method of its manufacture.

Upon the trial a considerable amount of expert testimony was tak

The court made and filed findings of fact. Findings (1), (2), (3), and (4) relate to the corporate character and kind of business carried on by the plaintiffs. In the fifth finding defendant is found to be the dairy and food commissioner of the state of Wisconsin, and that it was his intention to strictly enforce the provisions of chapter 279 of the Laws of 1925, and thereby prevent the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, where the same has been made by the use of either whole or skimmed milk as an ingredient.

It is further found that none of the plaintiffs have sold oleomargarine in violation of law. It is further found:

as

"(7) That oleomargarine, manufactured and sold in Wisconsin, is of two kinds, to wit:

66

'(a) The animal fat type, wherein the ordinary ingredients consist of oleo oil, neutral lard, and refined cottonseed oil or peanut oil, all of which are emulsified in ripened whole milk or skimmed milk, and to which salt is added; that this type of oleomargarine has been sold in Wisconsin for over 30 years last past.

"(b) The nut type, wherein the ordinary ingredients consist of refined cocoanut oil and refined cottonseed oil, which are emulsified in ripened skimmed milk, to which salt is added; that this type of oleomargarine has been manufactured and sold in Wisconsin for more than 10 years last past.

"(8) That oleomargarine, as generally manufactured and sold in the

(-Wis. - 214 N. W. 369.)

United States and in the state of Wisconsin, has always contained either ripened whole milk or ripened skimmed milk; that such milk is used for the purpose of getting a proper emulsion, and the giving of texture and a palatable flavor; that no other satisfactory emulsifying agent than milk has ever been discovered.

"(9) That oleomargarine, as manufactured and sold in Wisconsin, is nearly white in color; that it is not artificially colored; that the color of oleomargarine does not resemble that of the butter of commerce.

"(10) That oleomargarine has been in general use by that trademark name throughout the United States for more than 30 years last past and is a well-known article of food; that during practically all of that time it has been used, and is now being used, by all classes of people both for cooking and culinary purposes, baking and as a spread for bread.

66

"(11) That the materials used in the manufacture of oleomargarine are of good quality, pure, and contain no elements which are deleterious to health; that the product that results is a wholesome and nutritious food product; that its caloric value is almost equal to that of butter.

"(12) That oleomargarine has not been sold as for butter in Wisconsin for many years prior to 1925; that there has been no fraud or deception practiced in its sale in Wisconsin for many years; that it is advertised, held out, and sold under its own name; that the ordinary oleomargarine of commerce has for years prior to 1925 been sold in Wisconsin in prints which

are

wrapped in waxed or oiled paper, inclosed in a paper carton, and on both sides of which carton appears the word 'Oleomargarine,' in plain letters in not less than 20 points plain Gothic type; that there have been no complaints or fraudulent advertisements or sales in Wisconsin for many years prior to 1925.

"(13) That for a number of years

53 A.L.R.-30.

last past oleomargarine has sold for a price ranging from 40 to 60 per cent. of the retail price of butter.

"(14) That during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, there were 66 wholesalers of oleomargarine and 5,223 retailers in the state of Wisconsin."

The court concluded as a matter of law that chapter 279 of the Laws of 1925 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory; that the act denies to complainants the right to carry on a lawful business in a lawful manner; that it constitutes an unlawful interference with interstate commerce; that it is in violation of the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin and of the United States.

Judgment was entered accordingly, perpetually enjoining the defendant dairy and food commissioner and his agents from enforcing the act, from which judgment the defendant appeals.

Messrs. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General, and Suel O. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant:

The police power extends to all regulations which have as their object the safeguarding of the public health.

Benz v. Kremer, 142 Wis. 1, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 842, 125 N. W. 99; Longbrake v. State, 112 Ohio St. 13, 41 A.L.R. 925, 146 N. E. 417; People v. Witte, 315 Ill. 282, 37 A.L.R. 672, 146 N. E. 178; Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 59 L. ed. 1400, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306, 318, 50 L. ed. 204, 209, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100; Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U. S. 325, 50 L. ed. 212, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Sanders v. Com. 117 Ky. 1, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 111 Am. St. Rep. 219, 77 S. W. 358; State v. Olson, 26 N. D. 304, L.R.A.1918B, 975, 144 N. W. 661.

The police power extends to and includes all regulations designed to promote the public welfare.

State v. Weber, 205 Mo. 36, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1155, 120 Am. St. Rep. 715, 102 S. W. 955, 12 Ann. Cas. 382; Dieterich v. Fargo, 119 App. Div. 315, 104 N. Y. Supp. 334; Com. v. Gilbert, 160 Mass. 157, 22 L.R.A. 439, 35 N. E. 454; State v. Schuman, 36 Or. 16, 47 L.R.A. 153, 78 Am. St. Rep. 754, 58 Pac. 661; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo. App. 176; Roth v.

State, 51 Ohio St. 209, 46 Am. St. Rep. 566, 37 N. E. 259; New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 53 L. ed. 75, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10; Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 57 L. ed. 184, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44. The legislature, under the police. power, may enact laws for the prevention of fraud and the promotion of public welfare.

Wadhams Oil Co. v. Tracy, 141 Wis. 150, 123 N. W. 785, 18 Ann. Cas. 779; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 57 L. ed. 364, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 284; Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510, 60 L. ed. 771, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 548; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 60 L. ed. 679, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 201, 202, 57 L. ed. 184, 187, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; Alexander v. Enright, 211 App. Div. 146, 206 N. Y. Supp. 785; Ex parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal. 220, 118 Pac. 714; Eberle v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 700, 707, 58 L. ed. 803, 806, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 464.

It is not within the power of the court to inquire into the motives which actuated the legislature, or the individual members thereof, in enacting legislation.

Building Height Cases, 181 Wis. 519, 195 N. W. 544; State ex rel. Rose v. Superior Ct. 105 Wis. 651, 48 L.R.A. 819, 81 N. W. 1046; Tilly v. Mitchell & L. Co. 121 Wis. 1, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1007, 98 N. W. 969; State ex rel. Board of Regents v. Zimmerman, 183 Wis. 132, 197 N. W. 823; Wright v. Defrees, 8 Ind. 298; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 569; 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1087; Calder v. Michigan, 218 U. S. 591, 54 L. ed. 1163, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 199, 57 L. ed. 184, 186, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn. 487, 15 S. W. 364; Moore v. Street Comr. 62 N. J. L. 386, 41 Atl. 946; Downey v. State, 160 Ind. 578, 67 N. E. 450; State ex rel. Voris v. Seattle, 74 Wash. 199, 4 A.L.R. 198, 133 Pac. 11; Delaplane v. Crenshaw, 15 Gratt. 457; Tennant v. Kuhlemeier, 142 Iowa, 241, 120 N. W. 689, 19 Ann. Cas. 1026.

The manufacture and sale of oleomargarin are inherently fraudulent.

Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 46 L. ed. 171, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 120; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 49 L. ed. 78, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; State ex rel.

Atty. Gen. v. Capital City Dairy Co. 62 Ohio St. 350, 57 L.R.A. 181, 57 N. E. 62; State v. Myers, 42 W. Va. 822, 35 L.R.A. 844, 57 Am. St. Rep. 887, 26 S. E. 539.

The principle of false representations without actually untrue statements is well recognized in the law.

12 R. C. L. 303; Aarons Reefs v. Twiss [1896] A. C. 273-H. L.; Downey v. Finucane, 205 N. Y. 251, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 307, 98 N. E. 391; Wiser v. Lawler, 189 U. S. 260, 47 L. ed. 802, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624, 22 Mor. Min. Rep. 630; Hayward v. Leeson, 176 Mass. 310, 49 L.R.A. 725, 57 N. E. 656.

It is likewise immaterial whether or not in the particular case there is a wilful intent to deceive, although it is submitted with reference to oleomargarin advertisements that there is a wilful intent to deceive.

Cotzhausen v. Simon, 47 Wis. 103, 1 N. W. 473; Mannel v. Shafer, 135 Wis. 241, 115 N. W. 801; Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84, 49 Eng. Reprint, 994; Montgomery v. Thompson [1891] A. C. 217 -H. L.; Reddaway v. Banham [1896] A. C. 199, 25 Eng. Rul. Cas. 193-H. L.; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245, 24 L. ed. 828; Morton v. Morton, 148 Cal. 142, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 660, 82 Pac. 664; Tarrant & Co. v. Johann Hoff, 22 C. C. A. 644, 45 U. S. App. 143, 76 Fed. 959; J. I. Case Plow Works v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. 162 Wis. 185, 155 N. W. 128; Phoenix Mfg. Co. v. White, 149 Wis. 287, 135 N. W. 891; Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall's Safe Co. 208 U. S. 554, 559, 52 L. ed. 616, 620, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350.

The statute does not violate the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 32 L. ed. 253, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 992, 1257; State v. Addington, 77 Mo. 110; McAllister v. State, 72 Md. 390, 20 Atl. 143; Butler v. Chambers, 36 Minn. 69, 1 Am. St. Rep. 638, 30 N. W. 308; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 43 L. ed. 49, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 757; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 46 L. ed. 171, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 120; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 63, 49 L. ed. 78, 98, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Hammond Packing Co. v. Montana, 233 U. S. 331, 58 L. ed. 985, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596; Amos Bird Co. v. Thompson (D. C.) 274 Fed. 702; State ex rel. Carnation Milk Products Co. v.

(— Wis. —, 214 N. W. 369.)

Emery, 178 Wis. 147, 189 N. W. 564; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 51 L. ed. 499, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; DayBergwall Co. v. State, 190 Wis. 8, 207 N. W. 959.

The statute is valid under the state Constitution.

Pauly v. Keebler, 175 Wis. 428, 185 N. W. 554; Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 121, 108 N. W. 627, 9 Ann. Cas. 711.

The statute does not violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 39 L. ed. 223, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 590, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154; Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 257 U. S. 129, 66 L. ed. 166, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 42.

Mr. C. A. Erikson also for appellant. Messrs. Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie, & Toebaas, for respondents:

It is the duty of this court, and the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, to protect the interests of the citizens of the United States and of the state, and to prohibit the legislature from invading the constitutional guaranties.

Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. 270 U. S. 402, 70 L. ed. 654, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 320; 36 Cyc. 1151; Curry v. Lehman, 55 Fla. 847, 47 So. 18; Smith v. People, 47 N. Y. 330; Dane County v. Reindahl, 104 Wis. 302, 80 N. W. 438; McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N. W. 185; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 43 L. ed. 49, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 757; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Henderson v. New York (Henderson v. Wickham) 92 U. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543; Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 30 L. ed. 237, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1114; State v. Hanson, 118 Minn. 85, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 865, 136 N. W. 412, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 405.

The questions as to whether the act, in the exercise of the police power, really was so enacted, and whether it is reasonable or arbitrary, are judicial questions.

12 C. J. 933; State ex rel. Owen v. Donald, 160 Wis. 21, 151 N. W. 331; State v. Redmon, 134 Wis. 89, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 229, 126 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 114 N. W. 137, 15 Ann. Cas. 408; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 L. ed. 256, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1138; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; People v. Steele, 231 Ill. 340, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 361, 121 Am.

St. Rep. 321, 83 N. E. 236; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 368, 2 L.R.A. 81, 12 Am. St. Rep. 560, 19 N. E. 390.

Under the guise of police regulation for the promotion of health, comfort, safety, and welfare of society, the court will not allow the rights of property to be invaded when it is manifest that such is not the object and purpose of the legislation.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 4th ed. 719; Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315, 12 Am. Rep. 694; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 87, 21 L. ed. 394, 412; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Re Hall, 50 Cal. App. 786, 195 Pac. 975; Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 29 L.R.A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 40 N. E. 454; People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389, 4 Am. St. Rep. 465, 17 N. E. 343; Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wis. 193, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 486, 128 Am. St. Rep. 1061, 116 N. W. 885; State v. Redmon, 134 Wis. 89, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 229, 126 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 114 N. W. 137, 15 Ann. Cas. 408; State ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 58 L.R.A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934, 90 N. W. 1098; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523, 79 N. E. 745; Nolan v. Jones, 263 Pa. 124, 106 Atl. 235; Building Height Cases, 181 Wis. 519, 195 N. W. 544; State ex rel. Carter v. Harper, 182 Wis. 148, 33 A.L.R. 269, 196 N. W. 451; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 236 U. S. 230, 59 L. ed. 552, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 296; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U. S. 491, 59 L. ed. 1423, L.R.A.1916A, 1133, P.U.R. 1915D, 706, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 869; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 661, 31 L. ed. 210, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 34 L. ed. 455, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 185, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862; Booth v. Illinois, 184 U. S. 425, 46 L. ed. 623, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425; Bailey v. People, 190 Ill. 28, 54 L.R.A. 838, 83 Am. St. Rep. 116, 60 N. E. 98.

Every legislative act must stand for review before the court, as a matter of judicial determination on the ground of reasonableness.

Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wis. 193, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 486, 128 Am. St. Rep. 1061, 116 N. W. 885; Mehlos v. Milwaukee, 156 Wis. 591, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1009, 146 N. W. 882, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1102; State v. Hanson, 118 Minn. 85, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 865, 136 N. W. 412,

« PředchozíPokračovat »