The Hope pioneer. [volume] (Hope, N.D.) 1882-1964, 1905-04-20

Dear Sir: Your letter of March 4, ad
dressed to B. Heller & Co., chemists,
Chicago. Ill.,, has been referred to me,
as their attorney, for answer.
Il advised B. Heller & Co. some
time ago, and have so advised them
with regard to your recent letter. that
the food law of North Dakota. in so
far as it prohibits the use of chemical
pr~eservatives in food, is unconstitu-
tional and void; and that in prosecut-
ing their products you are acting with
out any warrant Of law. Therefore, as
far as B. Heller & Co. are concerned,
or any of their representatives, your
letter of March 4 last will receive alb
solutely no attention, other than this
answer.
Let me assure you that I fully ap-
preclate your personal position in this
matter, and that in view of the plain
wording of your law and your duty to
enforce it, your letter is in a sense con
ciliatory. But when you so outside of
your province as a commissioner and
state legal conclusions and brand my
clients business as an illegal one, I
beg to inform you that it is merely a
matter of opinion with you, and in that
regard u opinion is just as good as
yours. You are not justified when you
infringe on the province of the judi
ciary department of your state. The
position you take personally in these
matters is not warranted by law, by
investigation of science, by facts PROV
en-, or by common reason.
"My clients business is legitimate
in every respect, and being so, your
letter is certainly an effrontery. Let
me assure you further that these peo-
pie are not afraid of the light of day
on their business, and will not go out
OF business in your state merely be-
cause you ask them to; and you may
expect that they will advertise their
products n North Dakota and try to
do just as much business there as any
other legitimate industry.
In regard to a test case, we have at
all times in the past endeavored to
have this matter litigated, but have
not had a proper opportunity; but we
do not propose to try the matter until
the opportunity is right. However, I
judge from the tone Of your letter that
We may have occasion to try the mat
ter before long. My clients wish to go
on record further as willing 70 stand
back of all their products and protect
their customers when they follow in
structions.
According to your letter, I judge
there is nothing further to be done in
this matter but for you to follow your
course as you may see fit, and my eli.
ents will follow theirs in like manner
Yours very truly.
(Signed) Thomas E. Lannen.
The proposed attitude of the com
pany is clearly manifest in the letter
OF their attorney. 1 have but n thing
to say to the butchers and the people
of the state.
The law is clear, explicit and mand.
atory on this point. If butchers and
meat men choose knowingly to violate
the law, they must expect to defend
their action in the courts of the stats.
I wish to give this warning to the pub
lie:
shall prosecute every dealer whose
meats are found to. contain added
chemical ~preservatives, unless it can
be shown that our food law is uncon-
stitutional.
If you choose to align yourselves
with the violaters of the law, you will
sooner or later be likely to pay dear
ly for your experience. My advice is,
have nothing to do with the use of any
chemical product to be used in prepar-
ing or preserving your meats unless it
can be shown that the same would not
render your meats illegal.