been sharply criticised by law magazines in and out of New York. The criticism rests upon the assumption that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and similar spurious imitations so often put upon the market for sale as butter, constitute a fraud and false pretense of the first magnitude, the absolute suppression of which is clearly within the power of a state.
But a careful examination of the opinion of the Court of Appeals of New York shows, that possibly, the criticism referred to rests upon a misconception.
The court held that the object and effect of the New York statute which they were called upon to construe, was not to supplement the provisions of existing statutes against fraud and deception by means of imitation of dairy butter, but that the statute went much further. The court say:
"The law attempts to prohibit the sale of any article intended to take the place of butter. This prevents competition and places a ban on progress and invention. It invades the rights both of persons and property, guaranteed by the institution. The sale of a substitute for any article of manufacture is a legitimate business, and if effected without deception can not be arbitrarily suppressed. This act is not aimed at deception, but goes further; it in effect creates an monopoly destructive of rights protected by the constitution both of the state and the United States."
It is proper to observe that a statute on this subject in Missouri, almost identical with that of New York has been pronounced constitutional by the Supreme Court of that state (State vs. Addington, 77 Missouri, 110), and by Mr. Justice Miller, of the United States Supreme Court, in a case in the Circuit Court (In re Brosnahan, 18 Federal Reporter, 62).
PUBLIC MORALS.
Alabama, Connecticut, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, and New York have passed laws providing that if any person shall import, print, publish, sell,
