The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-10-31
B0BS UP AGAIN.
Kansas Insists ON Uncle Sam
Keeping Hands Off.
Doctrine of States Rights Is
Involved.
THE STOCK FOOD CASE
Attorney General jackson Com
pletes His Brief.
Denies That the Federal Court
Has Jurisdiction.
THE STOCK FOOD CASE

| 4Ae interference OF IGderaI courts
with state officers in the discharge of
their duties has come to the front in
the Kansas stock food" case, brought
by Marion w. Savage. the proprietor of
a stock food company, against c. w.
Burkett, director of the state expert
ment station, who is entrusted with the
enforcement of the stock food law
enacted at the last session of the legis-
lature.
As In the much talked of Minnesota
case, now in the United States supreme
court, and in the action of Attorney
General Jackson in the Kansas 2-cent
fare suit. the point is raised in the
SaVage-Bllrkett lawsuit that the United
States circuit court has no jurisdiction
over c. W. Burkett, and can not re-
strain him from enforcing the state
law, because suit against Burkett as
state officer is the same as a suit
against the state, and the state can not
be sued.
Attorney General F. S. Jackson and
Assistant Attorney General Chas D.
Shukers have just finished the prepara-
ton of their brief in the stock food
case This case involves the validity
of the law enacted at the last session
of the legislature providing for the in
spection Of all stock foods on the Kan
sas market.
The stock food people are fighting the
law on the following grounds:
Kansas of 1907. regulating the sale OF
concentrated feeding-stuffs, etc, is I'M
constitutional
(a) Because it discriminates against
by imposing an inspection tax of TWEEN
ty-hve cents per ton on their products
and requiring the tagging of packages
offered for sale within the state;
OBJ Because the penal clause of said
law provides that a written guarantee
he ia of oil 10
of the product that such products have
been registered and are of the guaran-
teed composition shall be a defense to
any person selling the same if said man
uracturer or seller is a resident of the
state of Kansas;
(c) Because said law provides that
the director of the experimental station
is required to publish list of the deal
ers in any registered product;
Id Because the manufacturer of any
product is required to furnish said di
rector with a formula for the compost
ton of said product such formula not
to be divulged by said director.
Second-That the director of the eX-
pertinent station; who is charged with
the enforcement of said law, is not con-
STRUNG said act properly, and is there
by including the products of the COM
plainant within the meaning of said
law. when a correct construction there |
of would exclude the same from the |
terms and conditions of said law.
The attorneys for the state meet
these allegations with the statement |
that the federal courts can not in |
terfere with a state officer in the dis
charge of his duty. The brief says:
1.-The real distinction in all of the |
cases has turned upon the nature of |
the states interest in the controversy.
Judge Trieber'S opinion is not only de- ]
cisive of this case, but complainants I
will hunt long and far for a decision |
which states more clearly the distinc-
ton between suits in which state Of
fcers may be brought within the
equitable jurisdiction of the federal !
court for the purpose of restraining
them from violating the federal rights
of citizens of other states on the one
hand, and those cases on the other
where the making of state officers
parties to such proceedings is a mere
to enable the parties COM
planning to sue the state. The distinc-
ton is summed W in these words:
"a state is the real party in inter-
est in a suit brought against its Of
fcers. when the relief sought is that
which fnures to the state alone, or
when the suit will have the effect Of
depriving the state of funds or prop
erty in its possession
Concerning the claim that the pro-
ducts of the Savage factory are not
stock food, but stock medicine, the
state says that this is a question in
which the court of equity has no
The constitutionality of the statute.
which is challenged by the plaintiffs.
Is met very briefly by the state. The
brief says: Being convinced beyond
doubt of the correctness of
,ur contention in the first part of this
brief. we have taken little interest in
his branch of the controversy" The
state claims that the law is not dis
as claimed, but is simply
Intended to protect honest retailers
rom the penalty for handling Illegal
stock food The claim that the
should not be required
o divulge trade secrets concerning
he formulas in use is. according to
he state, due to demonstration OF
he law. The state says that such
ear are groundless