The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1903-09-05
NOT STAMP THE CANS
WEAK SPOT In PURE FOOD Law
Apparently Through An Oversight, the
FrHners 81 the Measure Neglected to
Mako the Title ofthe BIN sumeienlIy
Comprehensive.

Manufacturers Of canned goods are
relieved from the burden of having
to stamp their cans with figures show
ing the year In which the contents
we're canned, as provided by the pure
food Law.
Attorney General Bagley has found
that this section Of the Law is un-
constitutional, in that it conflicts
with that clause of the constitution
which provides that every act shall
embrace but one subject and matters
properly connected Herewith, which
subject shall be expressed in the
title. -
That the section Of the law referr-
ing 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
committee to which il was referred
and was not incorporated in the
measure as introduced.
Aoc ANAAu6AAAOI VI NuAh ncGtAO1 Will
in no wise effect the remaining pro-
visions of the Law which, the attorney
general holds, are valid and complete.
The full text Of the decision Of the
attorney general is as follows:
Boise, Idaho, Aug. l9, 1908. Hon.
A. Mcpherson, Pure Food Commiss-
Toner Boise, Idaho-Sir: Replying
to your request for my opinion as to
the constitutiOnailty Of clause 8,
section 26 Of the pure food law of this
state, passed by the last legislature,
which reads as follows:
ANY article shall be deemed to be
adulterated. within the meaning of
this act, in the case OF foods:
(sl All canned fruits, vegetables
and meats put up in tin cans shall be
stamped in the cover the year when
put up.
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:
An act regulating the manufacture
and sale Of dairy, food and Gil pro-
ducts: to prevent deception or fraud
in the sale of the same or imitation
thereof. =
The constitution. section l 8, article
3. provides: Every act shall embrace
but one subject and matters properly
connected tberwith, which subjects
shall be expressed in the title, but if
any subject shall be embraced in the
act which shall not be expressed ia
the title, such act shall be void only
as to so much theerof a. was not
embraced in the title.
An examination of this act shows
that paragraph 5 of section 20, has
no relation to that section or any part
of the act There is nothing in the
title Of this act that would indicate
it contained such a provision.
An investigation as to the history
of this clause shows that il was added
to the bill after it was originally
drawn and has the appearance Of hav-
ing been embodied and passed with
out the consideration the legislature
evidently would have desired to give
such a clause.
The title of an act shall be so ex-
pressed that an examination of il
will reveal the object of the act.
Ballentine VS.. Wiley, > Idaho, 1908.
l am of the opinion that subdivis-
ion of section 20, is not germane
to the subject expressed in the title
to this act and is therefore uncon-
stituti0nal and void.
This will not affect the balance of
this act, which is complete without
this subdivision.
You will observe that this clause
was inserted at the end of very
long section and has no grammatical
or other connection with that section
or with the act itself.
Respectfully,
JOHN A. BAGLEY,