The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-01
BAKING POWDER CASE
Law IS UPHELD BY
JUDGE ORR
GOODS MUST BEAR THE Label

Case Submitted on Stipulated
Agreement of Facts-Agent Sold
Package of Powder to One Matt
O'Grady, "a Local Grocer-MemO-
randum of Provisions of Law Dis
cussed by Judge Orr.
In a decision rendered in the case Oh
The State against F. A. Dix, agent for
Prices baking powder, Judge Orr yester-
day upheld the constitutionality of the
new baking powder law requiring all
baking powders sold within the state OF
Minnesota to bear on the labels state
ments of heterogeneous composing the
powders. The case was submitted on
stipulated statement of facts, the defense
resting upon the alleged demonstrations
atty of the law. Dix sold a package of
Prices baking powder to Matt OGrady,
a local grocer. Attorney Mum, for the
baking powder company, will at once
take the case before the supreme court
on habeas corpus proceedings. The pen
atty imposed upon Dix was the minimum
fine of $50 or thirty days in the county
Jail. After reviewing the facts in the
case, Judge Orr discusses the constitu-
tienality of the law in the following
memorandum: ~
The principal question urged is that
chapter 245 of the General Laws of the
State of Minnesota, 1899, contravenes the
constitution of the United States and is
men Of the law is violation of the rights
guaranteed by the constitution OF the
United States, as interfering with the free
and unrestricted commerce between the
states. The statute does not prohibit the
manufacture or the sale Of baking pow
ders, does not prohibit the sale and Offer
ing for sale of baking powders without
q label on said packages containing a
powders. Some of the baking powders
on the market are pure and not injurious
to the public health while there are other
powders which contain ingredients re-
garded as being injurious and deleterious,
to the health of the consumers. The pur-
pose of the label Is to inform the .pur-
chaser Of the true nature of the subject
of his purchase, and to protect him from
imposition, fraud or deception. Such
requirement does not deprive the owner
of the property, nor does 1t deny to MIN
the equal protection of the laws by being
required to disclose the real nature OF the
ingredients of the commodity which he
exposes for sale. No one has the right
protected by the constitution from legis-
IatlYe interference TO keep secret the
composition of such goods in order that
others may be induced to purchase and
use what they would consider to be hurt
full, and what they would not knowingly
purchase or use. The owner of the prop
erty may be legally required, as mat
ter of proper police regulation, to sell it
for what it actually is and upon its own
merits. Stoltz vs. Thompson, A Mimi,
271. The qualities and ingredients Of
many common articles of food are not
usually a matter of common knowledge,
land are not discernible by the appear
ance of such articles, and the means of
ascertaining them are not available to
the mass of the people The label re-
CURED by law advises the consumer what
he is buying and using, and in no way
deprives the owner of his property with
out due process of law See State VS..
Asleslen, 80 Mimi, 5. Nor does 1t lay
any restriction upon the seller as to his
right to ship or sell his commodity. The
any proper baking powder from the mar
must be properly labeled as requited by
law. While 1t is true that compliance
with the provisions of this law would
necessitate some Inconvenience and ex-
pense, such Inconvenience and expense
would not be so burdensome as to be
restrictive or prohibitive in their charac-
ter, and would not bring this case with
of Minnesota VS.. Barber, 1876 U. S., 313.
1 am of the opinion that the law should
be upheld. Whether other concerns sell
baking powder that are injurious is i'm
material, as the legislature may provide
for the means of showing what such
powders contain, that the public may
know what they are in fact buying.