The Saint Paul globe., 1900-02-11

That Is the View of Attorney ZOll-
man, Who Was Interested in the
Case-Its ConstituttOnality So Far
to Be a Matter for the Supreme
Court to Pass Upon.
So far as Judge Lochren's decision in
the United States court in the matter Of
the application of F. A. Dix for a writ
Of habeas corpus is concerned the con-
stitutionality of the baking powder law
in chapter 245, General Laws of
1889, as apply to the sale by
retailers and jobbers of baking powder
not complying with the requirements is
unaffected. That at least is the opinion
of the state as expressed last evening by
Assistant County Attorney Zollman, who
with Attorney General Douglas, prose-
cuted the case on behalf of the state.
Said Mr. Zollman:
so far as the sale of certain kinds Of
| baking powder is concerned by the COM
pany itself to the man who sells it In this
state the law is unconstitutional. So far
as the requirement that the baking pow
der be labeled so as to show what in
gradients 1t contains when 1t comes into
unconstitutional
in violation Of the commerce clause Of
the federal constitution. That is the full
purport Of Judge Lochren'S decision. AS
far as the retailer or the jobber is con-
cerned the decision does not leave him In
a position where the baking powder can
be sold in the state without fulfilling the
requirements of the law"
In the case in question Dix, the agent
of the Price Baking Powder company,
was arrested for an alleged violation Of
chapter 245 of the General Laws of 1899.
The law provides that the baking pow
ders shall bear on their labels list of
the ingredients Dix was arrested for
violating this provision and sentenced to
pay fine of $50 or serve twenty-five days
in the county jail. Dix chose the latter
alternative and applied for writ Of
habeas corpus in the federal court in
order to test the law.
Judge Lochren was seen yesterday at
his chambers at the United States court
and asked whether this decision applied
to the sale by a grocer of baking pow
der which does not bear the required la
bel. Judge Lochren's answer was a re-
view in brief of his decision, in which
he brought out the fact that the case I'M
der consideration was one involving the
sale by an agent of a corporation of an
other state, and selling within this state
an article in the original package manu-
featured in another state.
Judge Lochren specifically declined to
say that the decision covered the sale Of
baking powder by grocer to the con-
sumner, saying that he had decided the
particular case before him and none 9TH
er. He would not discuss the bearing of
the decision upon any other phase of the
case
Phillip B. Hunt, one of the state manu-
facturers, said yesterday regarding the
decision:
II am familiar with the decision of
Judge Lochren 1t should not be misun-
derstood. The reports in the papers are
those who are not familiar with the ques-
ton, and 1 hope the grocers will not
jump to the conclusion that his decision
renders the law null and void In SO far
as 1t concerns them, or imagine for a
moment that it gives them the right TO
sell baking powder not 1absled according
to the pure food law.
They must remember that Mr.. Dix
sells only to the jobbers, and the case
against him was brought to settle a. dis
puted point in the law. The trainers of
the pure food law which went into effect
in January never intended to prevent the
jobbers of this state from buying any
baking powders they choose to handle,
but it did, and does still require that if
the powder is to be consumed in this
with the state laws. This part of the
law is still operative, and until the su-
preme court of this state has decided
that it is unconstitutional for the state
to protect the health and welfare of it's
people, it will still be a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine, for any retail deal
er to sell can of baking powder not
labeled as the law requires.
The objection raised by the trust has
been that this law compelled them to
make public a trade secret. But this OBJ
lection will not hold water, as the law
does not require that the formula be
given, but simply that list of the in
gradients be placed on each can, and if
this was such a hardship as the trust
people claim, Is 1t not strange that they
should be the only ones to raise an OBJ
lection to it?"
The G. r. Croft company issued cir
cular letter yesterday to It's customers
on the subject of the decision of Judge
Lochren. After saying the articles in the
morning papers were obviously written
by the Royal and Price Baking Powder
companies an assertion absolutely un-
| true so far as the G o b e is concerned.
the letter continues as follows:
THE point of law decided was in re-
| gard to the interference of the state with
| the interstate commerce law; in other
words. the agent of the Price and Royal
at the instigation of the trust for selling
| baking powder within the limits of Min
nesota- This point of law was well
known in advance to be on the side of
the trust, /. e.. that the state cannot in
| terfere with the rights of citizens of an
| other state, or, to put it plainly, the
| Price and Royal Baking Powder COM
panies can sell you all the baking powder
that you will buy, but when the dealer
gets this commodity and exposes 1t for
| sale then he comes within the iurisdic-
| ton of the police regulations of the state,
| and held accountable for his actions un-
1 q he
| powder for sale will be held liable re-
| gardless of the recent decision. which ap-
plies only to the interstate commerce por-
| ton of the act There are several cases,
| however, wherein retailers have been ar
! rested for the sale of Price and ROYAL
| baking powder. and when these cases are
| tried and the constitutionality of the law
! from that standpoint is considered by the
| supreme court. and the decision rendered.
not until then will the law be held in any
other light than valid