Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1907-07-24
objects Of national concern. y
INTENT,

objects Of national concern. "
INTENT.
The element of intent has gener
ally been eliminated from the of
fences prescribed in pure food laws
The dealer is held responsible fol
the purity and wholesome condition
of the foods he may sell, and it is
no defense that he was ignorant Of
their being adulterated unless in.
tent is made an element of the Of
Tense.
The seller must take upon him.
self the right of knowing that the
article of food he offers for sale is
not adulterated. State VS.. Smith 10
Rhode Island 2GO.
One who does thing forbidden
by statute is liable to the punish
ment imposed by it though in doing
the act he has no evil intent, unless
tho statute makes intent an element
OF the crime. State VS. Zeichfeld %
New. 3Ol. Haggerty VS. st. Louis
Ice Co. LIB Mo. 23S.
Under an Ohio statute prohibit
ing the sale of an adulterated ar
ticle of food, it was held not essen
tial to prove that the accused had
knowledge of such adulteration.
State VS. Kelley 81 Ohio l66, in
which case the court says, eff the
statute had imposed upon the state
the burden of proving knowledge of
adulteration it would therefore have
defeated its declared purpose"
In Michigan it was held under a
similar statute chat proof of a
guilty knowledge or intent is not
essential to conviction People VS.
Snowberger ll3 Mich. Sc.
The supreme court Of Wisconsin
holds, "When a statute does not
make intent an element of offense
but commands an act to be done or
omitted, with a culpability, ignor-
ance Of the fact or state of things
does not excuse the violator." State
VS. Hatwell "A Wis. 60.
Under a Massachusetts, statute
one may be convicted of selling
adnlterated milk although he did
not know it to be adulterated. Com
monwealth VS. Ferren 8 Allen 10.
Commonwealth VS. Smith lob Mass.
444.
In case of State VS. Schenker liz
Iowa 642, Judge Deemer, deliver
ing the opinion says: ut is not
enough to show that the defendent
did not intend to defraud, or that
the milk he sold was wholesome.
If it were true almost any law in
tended to protect the public health
and safety might be overthrown. 1t
is enough that authorizations such
as prescribed by statute, may de-
fraud or prove deleterious to the
public health or comfort. The
Legislature may we'll determine that
the adulteration of milk tends to
facilitate vicious practices and it
ought to be prohibited. To defeat
the act prohibiting such conduct, it
is not enough to show that in the
particular case the article sold was
innocuous. Criminal intent is not
an essential element of the offense
described in the statute and need
not be shown in order to justify
conviction.
1t is generally conceded that ig-
norance and carelessness in the sale
of food stuffs is menace to health
and ought to be restricted by prop
er penalties. And that the legisla
ture has the power to eliminate
from the oifense the element of in.
tent and thus greatly increase the
efficacy of the law.
GUARANTY.
There is a provision in the ma.
tional food and drug act, "that nc
dealer shall be prosecuted under
the provisions Of the act when h,
can establish guaranty signed b.
the wholesaler, jobber, manufactur:
er or other party residing in the
United States, from whom he pur.
chased such articles, to the effec
that the same is not adulterated o.
misbranded within the meaning o
the act, designating it. Such guar
anty to afford protection shall con
tain all the names and addresses o
the party or parties making tn
sale Of such articles to such dealer
and in such case said party or par
ties, shall be amenable to the prose
cutions, fines or other penaltie
which would attach in due course
to the dealer under this act"
The question arises as to the con
stitutionality Of incorporating sue
a provision in state law.
A state has no jurisdiction owe
non residents so that if a genera
guaranty clause was included in
state law providing for the guarant
to be signed by a wholesaler, jot
Der or manufacturer either in til
state or without the state Their
could be no way for enforcing tn
guaranty as to those residing with
out the state, and would be a dis
elimination against those residin
within the state, and q provisio
limiting the guaranty to the manu-
facturer or jobber residing in til
state would appear to be clearl
unconstitutional.
A statute which discriminates i
favor of the products Of our ow
state by permitting the sale of the,
on terms more favorable than a,
granted for sale of similar article
produced in other states is plainl
unconstitutional under the decision
of the supreme court of the Unite
Stotoo Walton ys Missouri OF r