Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1889-09-14
THE LAW INVALID.
Referring to the Act Embargo
ing Dressed Beef.
JUDGE BLoDGBTT DECIDES A CASE,

And Gives the Anti-"Big Fouc'' Lexisla-
Enactment No Good Because 1t Reckons
without Your Uncle samuel-Interest-
ing Points from the Judges Decision
A Statement of the Issues.
CHICAGO, Sept. l4-Judge Blodgett, in
the United States circuit court rendered an
opinion yesterday agreeing with Judges En-
sign and Stearns, of the Eleventh judicial
district of Minnesota, who have decided that
the Minnesota dressed beef law is unconsti-
tional and void. The case in which Judge
Blodgett arrived at this conclusion antedates
that in which Judges Ensign and Stearns
gave a similar opinion, and Judge Biodgett
had prepared his notes and was getting them
In proper shape when a newspaper clipping
containing a notice of the Minnesota decis-
ion was shown him.
The Swift-Sutphin Contract.
The way the question of the validity of the
law came up in the federal court was this:
g. A. Swift, the well-known packer of Swift
& Co, made contract with John b. SUIT
phin, mayor of Duluth, and they formed a
partnership for the sale of Chicago dressed
beef in Minnesota. Swift was TO ship the
meat from here and Sutphin was to do the
selling in Minnesota. The contract provided
for q forfeit of s., 500 by the party who
failed to perform the terms of the contract
The copartnership was formed May 10 last
to go into effect June l, but April Is the
Minnesota legislature passed its famous act
providing that all meat sold in the state
must be inspected by state officers twenty
four hours before slau ghter.
Sutphin Backs Out.
Mayor Sutphin backed out of the agree
ment with Swift being frightened by the
law, which fixed a penalty OF 500 fine and
three months Imprisonment for its violation
Thereupon Swift sued him for 81, 500 forfeit,
and Sutphin pleaded the Minnesota la as a
defense. Swift replied that the Minnesota
statute gave him no excuse for not living up
TO his contract, because it was unconstitu-
tional, being in violation of section s, article
of the federal constitution, giving congress
power to regulate commerce among the sew
eraI states, and also of section :, article of
the same constitution, giving the citizens of
each state all the rights, privileges and i'm
munities of citizens of the several states 1t
was argued on the hearing that cattle should
be inspected twenty four hours before slaugh-
ter by Minnesota officers if the meat was to
he shipped from Chicago TO Duluth The
case was submitted to Judge Blodgett by
consent
Judge Riodgett's Decision.
Judge Blodgett said that the Minnesota
act, purported by its title to b. an act for
the protection of the public health, and it
was insisted that it was valid because il was
police regulation coming within the pur-
view of the state government Judge
Blodgett held that cursory glance at its
provisions showed that its practical effect
was to exclude all dressed meats from
animals slaughtered outside of Minnesota
The animals not only must be inspected
within twenty-four hours before death, but
they must he inspected within the state, for
the only provision was as to state officers
who could have no power out of the state.
In effect, therefore, the statute excluded the
sale of meat from animals slaug Uttered in
other states While the state legislatures
were clothed with large discretion as to
police powers for the protection Of the
health, property and persons of citizens OF
the state, the power must be exercised so as
not to interfere with matters over which the
federal government had exclusive jurisdic-
ton
Specious Argument.
The Argument that the living animal
should be inspected before slaughter in or
der 10 determine whether it was fit for
slaughter was specious, but unsound. The
reasoning might be applied TO any manu-
featured article which was the subject of
commerce. The wholesomensss of -four.
cured meats, canned fruits, fish, etc, could
perhaps lie more accurately determined if
the raw material from which they were pro-
duced was inspected before manufacture,
but the admission of the doctrine that a
state could interdict the introduction and
sale OF an article of commerce unless it was
inspected by officers of the state in its raw
condition would put all commerce in the
state within the control of the legislature
No article of commerce could lie excluded
from introduction into and sale in state by
state inspection laws or prohibition laws
The statute in question was therefore void,
as being unconstitutional, and furnished no
answer to plaintiff SwifIs case.