Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-05-23
This Time it is a Minnesota Law
Which is Declared to be
Unconstitutional
The Case III Question is in regard to
the Shipment Of Fresh Neat
Into the State.
The Court Holds that q state Cannot
Interfere with Interstate
Commerce,
A Minnesota Law Unconstitutional,

WASHINGTON, May 19.-The supreme
court to-day rendered an opinion hold
ing to be unconstitutional the law of
Minnesota requiring that all fresh meats
sold in the state shall be cut from ami
mails slaughtered within the state and
inspected twenty-four hours before
slaughter. The case Is entitled "The
State of Minnesota against Henry D.
Barbour" and is of great interest to the
dressed beef men, who win the case.
Barbour was convicted of selling fresh
beef, slaughtered in Illinois, and which
had not been inspected before slaughter,
as required by the law of Minnesota. He
alleged that the law was an unconstitu-
tional interference with Interstate COM
MERGE. The court, in an opinion by JUS
tice Harlan, says: The enactment of a
similar statute by each one of the states
composing the union would result in the
destruction of commerce among several
states, so far as commerce is involved in
transportation from one part of the
country to another of meat DESIGNATED
for human food and entirely free from
disease. This act provides that all cattle,
sheep and swine shall be inspected within
t~wenty-four hours before animals are
slaughtered and that, if such be the fact,
the inspectors shall certify that the
slaughtered animals were found to be
healthy and fit for human food. The sale
OF meat not taken from inspected and
certified animals is forbidden under
penalty of fine or imprisonment.
AS Inspection must take place
within t~wenty-four hours Immediately
preceding the Strengthening, the act, by
its necessary operation, excludes from
Minnesota markets practically all fresh
beef, veal, mutton, lamb or pork in what
ever form, and although entirely sound,
healthy and fit for human food, taken
from animals slaughtered in other states,
and directly tends to restrict the slaugh-
tering of animals whose meat is to be
sold in Minnesota for human food, to
those engaged in such business
in that state. When to this
is added the fact that the statute, by it's
necessary operation, prohibits the sale
IN the state of fresh beef, veal, mutton,
lamb or pork from animals that may have
been inspected carefully and thoroughly
in the state where they we're slaughtered
and before they were slaughtered, no
doubt can remain as to it's effect upon
commerce among several states. It will
not do to s~ay-certainly no judicial tri-
bunal can with propriety assume-that
the people of Minnesota may not with
due regard to their health, rely upon in
spections in other states of animals there
slaughtered for purposes of human food.
If the object of the statute had been to
deny altogether to the citi-
9 of other states the privilege
of selling within the limits OF Minnesota,
for human food, fresh beef, veal, mutton,
lamb or pork, from animals slaughtered
outside Of the state, even those wholly
free from disease when slaughtered, and
to compel the people of Minnesota de-
string to buy such meats, either to pur-
chase them from animals slaughtered in
the state, or to purchase then when de-
sired for their own domestic use, at
points beyond the state, that object is
attained by the act in question.
Our duty to maintain the con-
stitution will not permit us to shut our
eyes to those obvious and necessary re-
suits of the Minnesota statute. If this
legislation does not make such discrimi-
nation against the products and business
of other states in favor of the products
and business of Minnesota, as interferes
with, and burdens commerce among the
several states, it would be difficult to en-
act legislation that would have such re-
suits: The judgment Of the lower court
is affirmed.
Connecting the Principal American Cities.
WASHINGTON, May 19.-The president