$57. Interstate Commerce, Prohibiting Sale of Adulterated Food and Drugs-Original Packages. A statute which prohibits the sale of adulterated food and drugs, is not repugnant to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, but is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. The State may prohibit the sale of such food or drugs, although it be offered for sale in the original package. It never was the intention of the interstate commerce clause that under its shield food and drugs detrimental to the health of the inhabitants of a State might be introduced and sold, and thus escape the provisions of State laws prohibiting the sale of like food and drugs which had been produced within the State.1 "And yet it is supposed that the owners of a compound which has been put in a condition to cheat the public into believing that it is a particular food V. effect Collins v. New Hampshire, A statute making it punishable to keep with intent to ship out of the state for food purposes the flesh of a calf which is less than four weeks old, or weighs less than 50 pounds, dressed weight, when killed, is invalid, as an interfer ence with interstate commerce. State v. Peet, 80 Vt. 449, 68 Atl. 661; In re Brundage, 96 Fed. 963, cannot be regarded as sound. Article I, § 10 of the Federal Constitution providing that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress lay any import or duty on any imports or exports, except as may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws," applies only to articles imported from foreign countries, or exported to them, and not to articles of interstate commerce. Red C. Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board, 172 Fed. 695. 1 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 Sup. Ct. 154, 39 L. Ed. 223, affirming 156 Mass. 236, 30 N. E. 1127, 15 L. R. A. 899; Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 24 Sup. Ct. 234, 48 L. Ed. 401, affirming 171 N. Y. 329, 83 N. E. 1097; Borden's Condensed Milk Co. v. Montclair (N. J. L.), 80 Atl. 30. in daily use and eagerly sought by people in every condition of life, is protected by the Constitution in making a sale of it against the will of the State in which it is offered for sale, because of the circumstances that it is an original package, and has become a subject of ordinary traffic. We are unwilling to accept this view. We are of the opinion that it is within the power of the State to exclude from its markets any compound manufactured in another State, which has been artificially colored or adulterated so as to cause it to look like an article of food in general use, and the sale of which may, by reason of such coloration or adulteration, cheat the general public into purchasing that which they may not intend to buy. The Constitution of the United States. does not secure to any one the privilege of defrauding the public. ""2 The Act of Congress of 1890,3 prohibiting the importation into the United States of adulterated and unwholesome food is not such action on the part of Congress on the subject as deprives the States of their police power to legislate for the prevention of the sale of articles of food so adulterated as to come within valid prohibitions of their statutes. The fact that a demand exists for articles of food so adulterated by fraud and deception as to come within the prohibitions of a State statute does not bring the right to deal therein under the interstate commerce of the Federal Constitution so that such dealings can not be controlled by the State in the valid exercise of its police power.5 A statute intended to prevent the coloring, coating or polishing of an article of intended food, whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, is not in conflict with the power of Congress to regulate commerce, even if applied to articles sold in the original packages imported from other States. 2 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 Sup. Ct. 154, 39 L. Ed. 223, quoted in Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 24 Sup. Ct. 234, 48 L. Ed. 401, when discussing the sale of imported impure food, and in affirming 171 N. Y. 329, 83 N. E. 1097. 3 26 U. S. Stat. at Large 414. 4 Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 24 Sup. Ct. 234, 48 L. Ed. 401, affirming 171 N. Y. 329, 63 N. E. 1097. 5 Crossman V. Lurman, supra. This was a sale of colored coffee. 6 Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 51 C. § 58. Forbidding Exportation of Food. Where a State statute made it a misdemeanor to keep, with intent to ship out of the State for food purposes, the flesh of a calf which was less than four weeks old when killed, or C. A. 122, 113 Fed. 616, 65 L. R. A. 864; State v. Rogers, 95 Me. 94, 49 Atl. 564; People v. Meyer, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 185, 85 N. Y. Supp. 834; In re Scheitlin, 99 Fed. 272; (Contra. In re Brundage, 96 Fed. 963); Commonwealth v. Van Dyke, 9 Pa. Dist. Rep. 41; Commonwealth v. Van Dyke, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 484; Commonwealth v. McCann, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 221; McCann v. Commonwealth, 198 Pa. 509, 48 Atl. 470; Armour Packing Co. v. Snyder, 84 Fed. 136; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board, 171 U. S. 345, 18 Sup. Ct. 757, 43 L. Ed. 191, affirming 53 Fed. 690; Red C. Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board, 172 Fed. 695; Evans v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 109 Minn. 64, 122 N. W. 876; State V. Peet, 80 Vt. 449, 68 Atl. 661, 130 Am. St. 998; In re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. 62. one year been examined by a veterinarian whose competency is vouched for by the State Veterinary Association of the state in which the herd is located, and a certificate signed by a veterinarian has been filed with the board of health, stating the number of cows in each herd which are free from disease," providing that the examination must include the tuberculin test, and charts showing the reaction of each individual cow must be filed with the board, and also providing that all cows which react must be removed from the premises at once if the sale of milk is continued, and no COWS can be added to a herd until certificate of satisfactory tuberculin tests of the cows have also been filed with the board, and still further providing that "no cream shall be sold, exposed for sale or delivered within the town of Montclair, unless it be produced and handled in accordance with the regulations," above set forth for the production and handling of milk, is valid, although it has the effect to prohibit the introduction of milk into Montclair from another state, where the dairymen producing the milk refuse or fail to comply with the provisions of these requirements. Borden's Condensed Milk Co. v. Montclair (N. J. L.), 80 Regulations for the protection of the public health are within the police power of the State, and are not an illegal interference with interstate commerce, if they have a real substantial relation to a public object which government can accomplish, and are not arbitrary and unreasonable and beyond the necessities of the case. Consequently an ordinance providing that "no milk shall be sold or offered for sale or distributed in the town of Montclair except from cows in good health, nor unless the cows from Atl. 30. which it is obtained have within A vendor of milk who invokes weighed less than fifty pounds dressed, and also made it an offense to have the flesh of such calves "with intent to sell for food purposes, it was held that an indictment based upon this statute charging the accused with having had such. meat in his possession with intent to ship it out of the State for food purposes was bad; because the Federal Act excludes a State from making any regulation upon the subject affecting such meat when it was a subject of interstate commerce; but that part of the indictment based upon a section of the statute making it an offense to have in possession the meat of such calves with intent to sell it for food purposes was valid, because that part of the statute must be construed to relate to sales within the State which would be within the power of the Legislature to regulate. Under the Federal Act the Secretary of Agriculture had issued regulations requiring carcasses of calves under three weeks of age to be condemned.' But where one section of a statute prohibited the sale as an article of food of veal from a calf under four weeks old when killed; and another section required all veal shipped to have annexed to it a tag stating the name of the person who raised the calf, the name of the shipper, the points of shipping, and the destination and age of the calf, it was held that the latter section was evidently passed to secure the enforcement of the provisions of the former section, and was clearly, as was such former section, within the police power of the State § 59. Sale of Adulterated Articles to Citizens of Another State Interstate Commerce. A statute which defines what constitutes adulterated food, the interstate commerce clause as a defense must clearly show that his acts come within its provisions. St. Louis v. Niehaus (Mo.), 139 S. W. 450. 1 State v. Peet, 80 Vt. 449, 68 Atl. 661, 130 Am. St. 998, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678. 2 People v. Bishopp, 106 N. Y. App. Div. 266, 94 N. Y. Supp. 773, affirming 44 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 12, 89 N. Y. Supp. 709; People v. Dennis (N. Y. App.), 114 N. Y. Supp. 7; People v. Jackson, 36 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 282, 73 N. Y. Supp. 461. if otherwise constitutional, must be held invalid on the ground that it is a regulation of interstate commerce and prevents its manufacture and sale to the inhabitants of other States.1 § 60. Inspection of Foods and Drugs. A State has full power to provide for inspection of foods and drugs, in order to secure their purity. This has been elsewhere discussed sufficiently under other heads not to require here the citation of authorities. It may provide for the inspection of foods imported into the State, as well as animals. Such a statute must, however, operate alike upon imported as well as upon exported and domestic articles.2 Thus a statute requiring all beer manufactured in the State to be inspected is valid; notwithstanding the doctrine that an inspection law can not be legitimately employed to yield a revenue beyond the cost of inspection. Such a doctrine has no application to such a law, since the manufacture and sale of beer may be prohibited." The fee exacted for inspection can not be held invalid, unless so unreasonable and disproportionate to the service. rendered as to impeach the good faith of the law.* A statute which empowers a municipality "to do all acts and make regulations which may be necessary or expedient for the promotion of health or the suppression of disease," confers power upon it to establish a public slaughter house for the purpose of securing proper inspection of fresh meats.5 § 61. Inspection Laws Preventing Importation. 171 U. S. 345, 18 Sup. Ct. 862, 43 L. Ed. 191, affirming 53 Fed. 690. While a State may enact laws for the inspection of foods, 1 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. 1 Evans v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 109 Minn. 64, 122 N. W. 876; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S. W. 828. 2 Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board, 3 State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S. W. 828. 4 Red C. Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board, 172 Fed. 695. 5 Huesing v. Rock Island, 128 Ill. 465, 21 N. E. 558, 15 Am. St. 129, reversing 25 Ill. App. 600. |