The Teton peak. [volume] (St. Anthony, Idaho) 1899-1904, 1903-08-27
NOT NECESSARY
TO STAMP CANS
Attorney General Finds
a Weak Spot in the
Pure Food Law.
Will Not Invalidate The Other
Sections.

manufacturers OF canned goods are
relieved from the burden of having to
stamp their cans with figures showing
the year in which the contents were
cam ed, as provided by the pure food
law
Attorney General Bagley has found
that this section of the law is uncon-
stitutiOnal in that it conflicts with that
clause of the constitution which pro
vides that every act shall embrace but
one subject and matters properly con
nected Herewith, which subject shall
be expressed in the title
HOW 1T OCCURRED.
That the section of the law referring
to the stamping of canned goods was not
mentioned in the title is probably due
to the fact that this provision was added
to the bill by the com mittee to which it
was referred and was not incorporated
in the measure as introduced.
OTHER SECTIONS STAND.
The notification of this section will
III ho Wloc eHtCb tHe IciilftlHiuS pIOfl-
sions Of the law which, the attorney
general holds, are valid and complete.
OPINION IN FULL.
The full text of the decision of the at
torney general is as follows:
Boise, Idaho, Aug. 10, 1903. 3.-Hon. A.
Mcpherson, Pure Food Commissioner,
hn to
request for my opinion as to the consti
tutionality of clause s, section 26 of the
pure food law of this state, passed by
the last legislature, which reads as fol-
| lows:
ANY article shall be deemed to be
adulterated, wishin the meaning of this
act, in the case of food;
(8) All canned fruits, vegetables and
meats put up in tin cans shall be
stamped in the cover the year when put
up
l have to say: This is known as
house bill No. 81, passed by the Seventh
session of the legislature The title OF
this act is as follows
can act regulating the manufacture
and sale of dairy, food and oil products
to prevent deception or fraud in the sale
of the same or imitation thereof
The constitution, section 16, article 3
provides: Every act shall embrace
but one subject and matters properly
connected Herewith, which subjec
shall be expressed in the title, but if an,
subject shall be embraced in the ac
which shall be expressed in the title
such act shall be void only as to so mucl
thereof as was not EN- braced in tn
title.
An examination of this act shows tina
paragraph 8 of section 26, has no rela
tion to that section or any part of tn
act. There is nothing in the title o
this act that would indicate it containe'
such provision
An investigation as to the history o
this clause shows that it was added t
the bill after it was originally draw
and has the appearance of having bee
embodied and passed without the cor
sideration the legislature evidentl
would have desired to give such
clause.
The title of an act shall be so eA
pressed that an examination OF it Wi
reveal the object of the act
q Ballentine VS.. Wiley, Idaho, 120'
am of the opinion that subdivisio
8 of section 26, is not germune to tt
subject expressed in the title to this az
and. is therefore unconstitutional an
void.
This will not affect the balance
this act, which is complete without tn
subdivision.
You will observe that this clause w
inserted at the end of a very long Sc
ton and has no grammatical or 9th
connection with that section or with t
act itself. Respectfully,
JOHN A. BAGLEY.
Attorney General.