St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-20
GOOD AND BAD BEEF.
It May Be Shipped Into Min
nesota and Offered for
Sale.
The Supreme Court Knocks
Out the Inspection on the
Hoof Law.
It Makes Unjust Diserimina-
tions Against the Products
Of Other States.
The Decision Not Much of a
Surprise to Those In
tereSted.

WASHINGTON, May 19.-The supreme
court of the United States rendered a
decision to-day in the case of The State
of Minnesota, appellant, VS.. Henry Il.
Barber, the famous dressed beef' case.
The court affirms the decision OF the
lower court, declaring the dressed beef
law unconstitutional and discharging
the appellee from custody. Barber was
convicted before a justice OF the
peace in Ramsey county, Min
nescta, of having wrOngfully and
unlawfully offered and exposed for
sale, and of having sold some fresh beef,
part of an animal slaughtered in Hi
nois, but not inspected in Minnesota, and
Certified" before SlaI ghte', as required
by the statute of Minnesota. Barber
sued out writ of habeas corpus on the
ground that the statute was repugnanU
to the provision Of the constitution CIV
Ing congress power TO regulate COM
merce between the states, as we'll as to
the provisions declaring that citizens Of
each state shall be entitled to all privi-
leges and immunities of citizens in the
several states. Ghe lower court held
the statute to be in violation Of both
these provisions. In the decision
handed down by Justice Harlan to-
day, the obnoxious statute is quoted
at length. The court says the enact
ment of a similar statute by each one of
the states composing the Union would
result in the destruction of commerce
am ng the several states, so far as such
commerce is involved in the transporta-
tion from one part of the country to
another of meat designed for human
food and entirely free from disease.
This act provides that all cattle, sheep
and swine shall he inspected within
twenty-fOur hours before the animals
are slaughtered, and that Gf such be
the fact) the inspectors shall certify that
the slaughtered animals were found to
be healthy and
Fit Human Food.
The sale of meat not taken from an
Inspected and certified animal is forbid
den under penalty of fine or imprlsOn-
ment. AS the inspection must take
place within the tWenty-fOur hours i'm
mediately preceding the slaughtering,
the act, by its necessary operation, eX-
cludeS from the Minnesota markets
practically all fresh beef, veal, mutton,
lamb or pOrk-in whatever form. and
although entirely sound, healthy and
fit for human foOd-takeu from animals
slaughtered in other states, and directly
tends to restrict the slaughtering
of animals whose meat is tC
sold in Minnesota for human food
to those engaged in such business il
that state. When to this is added the
fact that the statute, by its necessary
operation, prohibits the sale in the state
of fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb OF
bor I,o
Inspected carefully and thoroughly il
the state where they were slaughtered
and before they were slaughtered, nc
doubt can remain as to its effect upOr
commerce among the several states. L
will not do to Say-ceTtainly no judicia
tribunal can with prOpYietY assume
that the people of Minnesota may not
with due regard to their health, rely
upon inspections in other states O.
animals there slaughtered for purposes
of human food. If the object of The
statute had been to deny altogether K
the citizens of other states the privi
lege of selling within the limits of Min
neSota, for human food, fresh beef, veal
mutton, lamb or pork, from animals
slaughtered outside Of that state-eveI
those
Wholly Free From Disease
when slaughtered-and to compel the
people of Minnesota desiring to bu!
such meats either to purchase tina
taken from animals slaughtered il
the state or to purchase them
when desired, for their own domesti
use, at points beyond the state, that oh
ject IS attained by the act in question
Our duty to maintain the constitution
will not permit US to shut our eyes t.
these obvious and necessary results o
the Minnesota statute. If this legisla
tion does not make such discrimination
against The products and business o
other states in favor Of the products an,
business of Minnesota as interfere wit
and burdens commerce among the sew
eral states. it would be difficult to enac
legislation that would have such a re
suit. The judgment of the lower cour
Y affirmed