In Oliver & Others v. Rumford Chemical Works, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a Massachusetts statute that prohibited the manufacture of certain products was constitutional. The statute in question prohibited the manufacture of certain products, including sulfuric acid, which was used in the production of Rumford Chemical Works' products. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's police power. The Court reasoned that the statute was a reasonable exercise of the state's power to protect the health and safety of its citizens, and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the statute did not violate the Commerce Clause, as it did not discriminate against interstate commerce. The Court concluded that the statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power and was not unconstitutional.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Oliver & Others v. Rumford Chemical Works, arguing that the majority's decision was an improper exercise of judicial power and a violation of constitutional principles. He argued that Congress had not given courts authority to interfere with contracts between employers and employees, as it would be tantamount to interfering with private property rights without due process of law. Furthermore, he stated that the court should not have interfered with state laws regarding labor relations or attempted to set public policy on such matters; this was a task best left for legislatures rather than judges. Justice Field concluded by asserting that while there may have been some injustice done in this case, it did not justify judicial interference and could only be remedied through legislative action.