can not interfere. Thus the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania provided that no person, firm or corporation should "manufacture out of any oleaginous substance or any com 355; Pierce v. State, 63 Md. 592; McAlister v. State, 72 Md. 390, 20 Atl. 143; Commonwealth v. Evans, 132 Mass. 11; Butler v. Chambers, 36 Minn. 69, 30 N. W. 308; State v. Aslesen, 50 Minn. 5, 52 N. W. 220, 36 Am. St. 620; Weidman v. State, 55 Minn. 183, 56 N. W. 688; State v. Campbell, 64 N. H. 402, 13 Atl. 585; People v. Cipperly, 101 N. Y. 634, 4 N. E. 107, reversing 37 Hun 319; People v. Eddy, 59 Hun 615, 12 N. Y. Supp. 628; Walker v. Commonwealth (Pa.), 11 Atl. 623; Commonwealth v. Paul, 148 Pa. 559, 24 Atl. 78; Noel v. People, 187 Ill. 587, 58 N. E. 616, 52 L. R. A. 287, 79 Am. St. 238; Sadler v. People, 188 Ill. 243, 58 N. E. 906; Gillespie v. People, 188 Ill. 176, 58 N. E. 1007, 52 L. R. A. 283, 80 Am. St. 176; Gloversville v. Enos, 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 724, 72 N. Y. Supp. 398; affirmed 70 N. Y. App. Div. 326, 75 N. Y. Supp. 245; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed. 616, 51 C. C. A. 122; Commonwealth v. Kevin, 202 Pa. 23, 51 Atl. 594, 90 Am. St. 613; Crossman v. Lurman, 171 N. Y. 329, 63 N. E. 1097, affirming 57 N. Y. App. Div. 393, 68 N. Y. Supp. 311; People v. Braested (N. Y.), 51 N. Y. Supp. 824; State v. Luther, 20 R. I. 472, 40 Atl. 9; Dorsey v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 527, 44 S. W. 514, 40 L. R. A. 201, 70 Am. St. 762; Chicago v. Schmidinger, 243 Ill. 167, 190, 90 N. E. 369, 372; Rigbers v. Atlanta, 7 Ga. App. 411, 66 S. E. 991; Salt Lake City v. Howe, 37 Utah, 106 Pac. 705; State v. Milwaukee, 140 Wis. 38, 121 N. W. 658; Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 39 Pa. Super. Ct. 338; Red C. Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board, 172 Fed. 695; State v. Perry, 151 N. C. 661, 65 S. E. 915; Evans v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 109 Minn. 64, 122 N. W. 876; Mantel v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. App. 456, 117 S. W. 855, 131 Am. St. 818; Sue Lung v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 117 S. W. 857; People v. Owen (N. Y.), 116 N. Y. Supp. 502; Smith v. Alphin, 150 N. C. 425, 64 S. E. 210; North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306, 29 Sup. Ct. 101, 53 L. Ed., modifying 151 Fed. 120; State v. Weeden, 17 Wyo. 418, 100 Pac. 114; St. Louis v. Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 119, 112 S. W. 516; St. Louis v. Union Dairy Co., 213 Mo. 148, 112 S. W. 525; State v. Great Western Coffee & Tea Co. 171 Mo. 634, 71 S. W. 1011; Walton v. Toledo, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 547; Beha v. State, 67 Neb. 27, 93 N. W. 155; People v. Laesser, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 384, 79 N. Y. Supp. 470; People v. Hills, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 584, 72 N. Y. Supp. 340; People v. Niagara Fruit Co., 173 N. Y. 629, 66 N. E. 1114, affirming 75 N. Y. App. Div. 11, 77 N. Y. Supp. 805; Norfolk v. Flynn, 101 Va. 473, 44 S. E. 717, 99 Am. St. 918; Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 24 Sup. Ct. 234, 48 L. Ed. 401, affirming 171 N. Y. 329, 63 N. E. 1097; People v. Windholz, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 569, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1015; In re pound of the same, other than that produced from unadulterated milk, or of cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure un Watson 17 S. D. 486, 97 N. W. 463; Commonwealth v. Kebort, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 584; People v. Bishoff, 106 N. Y. App. Div. 266, 94 N. Y. Supp. 773, affirming 44 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 12, 89 N. Y. Supp. 709; St. Louis v. Liessing, 190 Mo. 464, 89 S. W. 611, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 918, 109 Am. St. 774; St. Louis v. Grafeman Dairy Co., 190 Mo. 492, 89 S. W. 617, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 936; Ex parte Hayden, 147 Cal. 649, 82 Pac. 315, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 184, 109 Am. St. 183; Jewett Bros. v. Smail, 20 S. D. 232, 105 N. W. 738; St. Louis v. Schuler, 190 Mo. 524, 89 S. W. 621, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 928; St. Louis v. Polinsky, 190 Mo. 516, 89 S. W. 625; St. Louis v. Reuter, 190 Mo. 514, 89 S. W. 628; Commonwealth v. Spencer, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 301; State v. Tetu, 98 Minn. 351, 107 N. W. 953, 108 N. W. 470; State v. Kumpfert, 115 La. 950, 40 So. 365; Ex parte Dietrich, 149 Cal. 104, 84 Pac. 770, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873; People v. Waters, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 669, 100 N. Y. Supp. 177; Metropolitan Milk & Cream Co. v. New York, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 377, 98 N. Y. Supp. 899; State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St. 166, 43 N. E. 163; Bissman v. State, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 714; Myer v. State, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 226; Strong v. State, 2 Ohio N. P. 93, 3 Ohio Dec. 284; Commonwealth V. Huntley, 156 Mass. 236, 30 N. E. 1127, 15 L. R. A. 839; Cook v. State, 110 Ala. 40, 20 So. 360; Haines v. People, 7 Colo. App. 467, 43 Pac. 1047; State v. Peet, 80 Vt. 449, 68 Atl. 661, 130 Am. St. 998; People v. Luke, 122 N. Y. App. Div. 64, 106 N. Y. Supp. 621; St. Louis v. Bippen, 201 Mo. 528, 100 S. W. 1048; St. Louis v. Schottell (Mo.), 100 S. W. 1049; Birmingham v. Goldstein, 151 Ala. 473, 44 So. 113, 125 Am. St. 33; People v. Gilman (N. Y.), 103 N. Y. Supp. 954; Ex parte Byrd, 84 Ala. 17, 4 So. 397, 5 Am. St. 328; Commonwealth v. Schollenberger, 156 Pa. 201, 27 Atl. 30, 36 Am. St. 32, 22 L. R. A. 155; Ex parte Scott, 66 Fed. 45; Borden's Condensed Milk Co. v. Montclair (N. J. L.), 80 Atl. 30. A wholesale grocer residing in the State and who is engaged in purchasing and selling goods in South Dakota and other States was held entitled to attack the validity of the South Dakota Pure Food Law. Jewett Bros. v. Smail, 20 S. D. 232, 105 N. W. 738. But see Bertram v. Commonwealth, 108 Va. 902, 62 S. E. 969. The constitutionality of a pure food law is to be determined by its language and purpose, and not by the alleged wrongful institution of prosecutions under it by those charged with its enforcement against those guiltless of a violation of its provisions. Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 51 C. C. A. 122, 113 Fed. 616, 65 L. R. A. 864. The Legislature may make it an offense to furnish oleomargarine to guest without that guest's a adulterated milk or cream from the same, or of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, nor shall sell or offer for sale, or have in his, her or their possession, with intent to sell the same, as an article of food." Upon the trial of an accused for having violated this statute it was offered to show by a witness "that he saw manufactured the article sold; that it was made of pure animal fats; that the process of manufacture was clean and wholesome, the article containing the same elements as dairy butter, the only difference between them being that the adulterated article contained a smaller proportion of the fatty substance known as butterine; that this butterine existed in dairy butter in the proportion of from three to seven percent, and in the manufactured article in a smaller proportion, and was increased in the latter by the introduction of milk and cream; that this having been done, the article contained all the elements of butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same except that the percentage of butterine was slightly smaller; that the only effect of butterine was to give flavor to the butter and that it had nothing to [do] with its wholesomeness; that the oleaginous substances in the manufactured article were substantially identical with those produced from milk or cream; and that the article sold to the prosecuting witness was a wholesome and nutritious article of food, in all respects as wholesome as butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk." This offer was rejected, and the action of the court was held correct. From the affirmation of the Act a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it was there contended that the statute was void, because it deprived all coming within its provisions of rights knowledge. State v. Ball, 70 N. H. 40, 46 Atl. 50, 57 L. R. A. 282; State v. Collins, 70 N. H. 218, 45 Atl. 1080. A statute requiring food to be pure will not be declared void because it tends to create a monopoly of a certain kind of food. Wright v. State, 88 Md. 705, 41 Atl. 795. The State may prevent the sale of adulterated wine. Ex parte Kohler, 74 Cal. 38, 15 Pac. 436. 1 Powell v. Commonwealth, 114 Pa. 265, 7 Atl. 913, 5 Cent. Rep. 890, 60 Am. Rep. 350. of liberty and property, and denied to them the equal protection of the laws, rights which are secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. "It is scarcely necessary to say," said the court, "that if this statute is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State for the protection of the health of the people, and for the prevention of fraud, it is not inconsistent with that amendment; for it is the settled doctrine of this court that, as government is organized for the purpose, among others, of preserving the public health and the public morals, it can not divest itself of the power to provide for those objects, and that the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere with the exercise of that power by the States." After denying that the statute was in contravention of this amendment, the court says: "Whether the manufacture of oleomargarine or imitation butter of the kind described in the statute is, or may be, conducted in such a way or with such skill and secrecy as to baffle ordinary inspection, or whether it involves such danger to the public health as to require, for the protection of the people, the entire suppression of the business, rather than its regulation in such manner as to permit the manufacture and sale of articles of that class that do not contain noxious ingredients, are questions of fact and of public policy which belong to the legislative department to determine. And as it does not appear upon the face of the statute, or from any facts of which the court must take judicial cognizance, that it infringes rights secured by the fundamental law, the legislative determination of those questions is conclusive upon. courts. It is not a part of their function to conduct investigations of fact entering into questions of public policy merely, and to sustain or frustrate the legislative will, embodied in statutes, as they may happen to approve or disapprove the determination of such questions. The power which the Legislature has to promote the general welfare is very great, and the discretion which that department of the government has, in the employment of means to that end, is very large. While both the power and its discretion must be so exercised as not to impair the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property, and while, according to the principles upon which our institutions rest 'the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails as being the essence of slavery itself.' yet in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of public opinion or by means of the suffrage. The case before us belongs to the latter class. The Legislature, upon the fullest investigation, as one must conclusively presume, and upon reasonable grounds, as must be assumed from the record, has determined that the prohibition of the sale, or offering for sale, or having in possession to sell, for purposes of food, of any article manufactured out of oleaginous substances or compounds other than those produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, to take the place of butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, will promote the public health and prevent frauds in the sale of such articles. If all that can be said of this legislation is that it is unwise or unusually oppressive to those manufacturing or selling wholesome oleomargarine as an article of food, their appeal must be to the Legislature or to the ballot box, not to the judiciary. The latter can not interfere without usurping powers committed to another department of government."'s 2 Quoting from Lick Co. v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 370, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 226. 3 Powell v. Commonwealth, 127 U. S. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 992, 32 L. Ed. 253, affirming 114 Pa. 265, 7 Atl. 913, 60 Am. Rep. 350, 5 Cent. Rep. 890; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78; Walker v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 699, 8 Sup. Ct. 997, 3 L. Ed. 261; Commonwealth v. Waite, 11 Allen 264, 87 Am. Dec. 711; State v. Schlenker, 112 Iowa 645, 84 N. W. 699, 84 Am. St. 360, 51 L. R. A. 347; St. Louis v. Schuler, 190 Mo. 524, 89 S. W. 621, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 928; State v. Layton, 160 Mo. 474, 61 S. W. 171, 62 L. R. A. 163; State v. Sherod, 80 Minn. 446, 83 N. W. 417, 50 L. R. A. 660, 81 Am. St. 268; Stolz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 271, 46 N. W. 410; Commonwealth v. Evans, 132 Mass. 11. "When a subject is within that |