Studies in the Social Sciences Volume 15 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 Excerpt: ...which became section 18 of this article to the effect that "Any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor." The remarkable vote on this amendment is of interest as indicating what can be done when a simple issue arousing the public is presented to the electorate. The amendment received a vote of 190.897 yeas as against 34,094 noes, out of a total vote of 284,366. Not only farmers who wished to sell but also city dwellers who wished to buy, united in passing the new section. In Hennepin county the vote was more than five to one for the amendment; in Ramsey nearly four to one. It may be observed that milk is a "product of the farm" under this section in the opinion of the attorney general.18 T Sess. Laws 1887, ch. 2. 'Ibid.. 1913, ch. 63; Gen. Stat. 1913, sec. 7805. Henderson v. City of Minneapolis, 32 Minn. 319; 20 N. W. 322, (1884). "Dickcrman v. City of Duluth, 88 Minn. 288; 92 JV. W. 1119, (1903)-"See p. 156. "State v. Jensen, 93 Minn. 88; 100 N. W. 644, (1904). While it is not essential to a discussion of the growth of this article to speak of decisions which interpret sections that have not been amended, it will serve to illustrate the results of judicial interpretation to give a brief summary of some leading decisions upon three important and much misunderstood questions, namely, freedom of speech, jury trial, and due process of law. The Minnesota constitution clearly indicates the fact that freedom of speech and of the press does not mean absolute, uncontrolled license. Unlike the first amendment to the federal constitution, which does not expressly refer to the common law limitations upon freedom of speech, the state constitution ...