The Southwestern Reporter Volume 89 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ...food itself an unlawful act; that ingredients and processes might be prohibited as unwholesome, or causing deception, but not solely because they preserve. It is well in all these cases to keep constantly In view the fundamental principles involved in them. Under our system of government the legislative branch Is empowered to enact all laws necessary to protect the public health, but it is conceded that its acts must have such a relation to the public health that the courts by inspection can discern that they relate to and are convenient and appropriate to promote the public health, and are not mere arbitrary provisions which the courts can see have no-. natural connection with the professed purpose of subserving the public health. Happily in these cases it Is manifest upon the face of the ordinance that the municipal assembly was exercising its police power in regard to a subject affecting the public health, to wit an article of food of general use and prime necessity, and that the purpose of the ordinance was to preserve the purity of the milk supply and to secure to the people of St. Louis pure and unadulterated milk. As said in St. Louis v. Liessing, 89 S. W. 611: "On no one subject has the police power been affirmed so often as the right to inspect and regulate the sale of milk and cream." The subject-matter, then, was clearly within the powers of the city council to regulate, and the sole question remaining for us to determine at this time is whether in the attempt to regulate the sale of milk the municipal assembly went beyond the limits of legitimate legislation on that subject. It is insisted by the defendant, and In that hp Is supported by the Court of Appeals in New York, In People v. Biesecker, 169 N. T. 53, 61 N. E....