Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Roschen v. Ward — Opinion of the Court

When the statute requires a physician or optometrist to be in charge of the place of sale in personal attendance at it, obviously it means in charge of it by reason of and in the exercise of his professional capacity. If we assume that an examination of the eye is not required in every case it plainly is the duty of the specialist to make up his mind whether one is necessary and, if he thinks it necessary, to make it.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Roschen v. Ward — Opinion of the Court

Moreover, as pointed out below, wherever the requirements of the act stop, there can be no doubt that the presence and superintendence of the specialist tend to diminish an evil. A statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it might have gone farther than it did, or because it may not succeed in bringing about the result that it tends to produce.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Roschen v. Ward — Opinion of the Court

The complainants sell only ordinary spectacles with convex spherical lens, which merely magnify and which it is said can do no harm. The customers select for themselves without being examined and buy glasses for a relatively small sum. It is said that the cost of employing an optometrist would make the complainants' business impossible, and that in the common case of eyes only grown weaker by age the requirement is unreasonable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature