Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-07-09
cial to Times Republican.

i stock food bill. as we'll as the other
pure food bill and pure drug bill and
everything else pure" are to be test
4 ed clear to the supreme court of the
United States. There are new points
I involved, and the manufacturers are
prepared 70 test tle law to the limit
1t may be that during the litigation to
follow some Of the laws passed in this
and other states may be knocked out.
/ Lawyers are watching the matter with
considerable interest, as well as manu-
! facturers.
/ In legal matters the liquor business
! is often cited as proving that state
fcan tax or license a business inside the
state, that tho the government puts on
| an internal tax and governs the inter-
state commerce, the state can control
/ the handling Of the goods after they
reach the hands of the dealer. But
| there is some question whether this
ruels in all lines of goods and the
manufacturers of other lines than
/ liquors claim there is no police power
4 OIL d STATE over luGlI SOOuS llhS lHStS
| is over liquors.
1 The appeals to the supreme court OF
| the United States will be on the
grounds of interference with interstate
commerce. In relation to the pure
stock food bill of Iowa the law requires
every manufacturer selling goods in
| side the state to pay a license fee OF
500. which they will claim is a direct
| interference with interstate COM
merce. 1t is understood, too, that they
are prepared to claim that the Iowa
laws are interfering with interstate
commerce when they go after the local
dealer for selling stuff shipped in that,
does not comply with the law. They
will claim that goods manufactured in
one state can be shipped to another
| and sold either to the consumer direct
or to a jobber or dealer, and then to
the consumer without interference of
a state law, and that il a state does
pass a law regulating the sale of these
goods it is interfering with interstate
commerce.
There will, according to those who
have been watching the progress of
this kind of legislation, also be some
test in relation to foods and the like
as to what constitutes an original
package: There have been rulings on
this in the case of liquors and cigarets
The courts have held that the entire
package as shipped is the original
package and must be thus sold in the
case of cigarets and liquors, but food
manufacturers seem to think they will
rule differently in the case of other
goods. For instance, in a famous Gig
aret case a dealer had the scent boxes
of cigarets shipped to him in basket.
He claimed that the basket was merely
convenience in handling the
goods, and that the small packages
as they were sold were the
original packages. The supreme
court said no, the basket was the
original package. But to follow this
out to it's logical conclusion where
will the grocer be who receives a
shipment of flour in sacks? In the
case of certain kinds of flavoring ex-
tracts and other supplies, these ex-
tracts are usually put lin small bottles
and each bottle in a pasteboard case.
They are then put in boxes holding
one or two dozen such boxes and sew
eral OF these are then put in still
bigger box for shipment to a grocer.
The question then is what is the orig
inal package.
The enforcement 6f the pure food
law upon the liquor dealers is a new
attempt in a new line to regulate the
liquor traffic in addition to that of
merely taxing it and there is some
question as to state authority again
and it is expected there will be ap-
peals along that line. Authorities
claim that il the state should attempt
to regulate the sale OF silk in the
state by licensing It's sale on the ground
that nlercerized cotton was being sold
for silk there would be little question
but that it would be construed by the
courts as tariff levied at the state,
line and hence unconstitutional Hence
the same question arises as to other.
lines Of goods and the question in the
minds Of those interested il where
can the line be drawn.
So far as the pure seed law Is con-
cerned it is believed there will be little
objection on the part Of the seed men
in the state at last. The law took eff
feet July 4 but in reality there will
be no need Of the law till next year
because the season is over for seed. /
The big merchants inside the state hail
the law as good thing. 1t may tend
to put the little fellow who doesn't
sell very good seed out OF business
and will encourage consumers to buy
inside the state where the seed has
tag stating its purity Seed bought
outside the state and sent direct to
the consumer is not liable to the law
because clearly interstate commerce.
H R. Wright. state food and dairy
commissioner has the advice Of At
torney General Byers in relation to
the pure stock food law and will pro-
coed to enforce the law unless tenn
porarily restrained by the courts We'd
nesday. The provision as to publish
ing the percentage Of dilutent went
into effect July 4 but as the license
fees does not have to be paid till July
Is in effect the entire law will not
be In force till then.