Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1907-07-24
interstate commerce. Minnesota vs.

interstate Commerce. Minnesota VI
Barger, 1876 us. 3l3.
The purpose of the commerce
clause of the constitution is to pre-
vent discrimination in favor Of local
products. Kehror vs., Stewart (Ga.)
A S. E. 954.
"All persons other than resident
manufacturers or their agents, sell
ling articles manufactured in the
state, shall pay the specific license
tax imposed by this section" held. a
clear case of discrimination in favor
of home manufacturers and against
the manufacturers of other states.
Webber vs Virginia, lob U. s. 344.
In the exercise of its public pow
ers, state may exclude from its
territory or prohibit the sale therein
Of any articles, which in its iudg-
ment fairly exercised, are prejudi-
cial to the health or which would
injure the lives or property Of its
people. But if the state under the
guise of exercising its police powers,
should make such exclusion or pro-
hibition applicable solely to articles
of that kind, that may be produced
or manufactured in other states, the
court would find no difficulty in
holding such Legislation to be in
conflict with the constitution of the
United States. Guy vs. Baltimore,
100 U. S. 434. !.
So tina! a guaranty clause in
state law either general or limited,
would probably be declared to be
unconstitutional. aIq.,.
The Iowa law only imposes
money fine on the offender. From
the nature of things the retailer is
the person upon whom the punish
ment must primarily rest. The re-
strictions in a state law apply al
most solely to the retailer. He may
be advised by the manufacturer or
jobber that the goods he sells will
comply with the state law, and he
may have no intent to violate the
law in any particular, and in such
a case it seems hardship to bring
his violation to the attention of a
court. But as the punishment is
only a money fine, he can, without
the aid Of statutory provision, if
person of prudence, fully protect
himself in the due and ordinary
course of business, by requiring be-
fore purchasing and receiving goods,
a guaranty from the manufacturer
or jobber, that the goods purchased,
comply in all respects to the law
and stimulating therein to hold
him harmless for any penaltiesim
posed, or costs incurred for the yio-
lations in the sale or keeping with
intent to sell such goods. This re-
quirement in due course of trade is
generally exacted by the retailer Of
the wholesaler, and the wholesaler
of the manufacturer. Sosthat the
fine and costs in course dNhssiness
eventually falls upon thelManufac-
turer or packer who aloneAin po-
sition to know that hisSproducts
comply with the law.
coLoRING.
On the grounds of protection of
health and the prevention of fraud,
coloring of certain articles of, food
is prohibited. In numerous statutes
coal tar and other poisonous ,c3lors
are prohibited in confectionery and
other food products as menace to
health.
Some twenty-three states have
laws prohibiting the adding Of ANY
coloring matter to vinegar. In New
York a law prohibiting the colotin'g
Of vinegar even with artificial icol-
oring not injurious in any way ito
health was sustained. 145, New
York People vs. Girard. ,,Sfttjy,
The statutes of New Hampshire
and West Virginia requiring ,qlso-
margarine to be colored pin f.soT as
to make deception impossible MAS
upheld. State VS. Marshall. 81 New
Hampshire $40. State vs. Meyer, Az
West Virginia S22.
| the supreme court of the United
States decided that the New Hamp-
shire statute was void SO far as it
linterfered with interstate commerce
on the ground that to require an
added foreign substance to an ar.
ticle of food whereby it is rendered
unstable, is in reality not Sregdla-
ton but prohibition. Collins VS.
New Hampshire, III U. S. 30. 9f
Il The supreme court of the United
States held Massachusetts, statute
prohibiting the coloring of oleomar-
garine in semblance of yellow but.
ter, valid, as e legitimate police reg.
ulation although affecting interstate
commerce. Plumley VS. Massachus-
etts, 155 U. S. 46l.
The coloring of oleomargarine
with annatte, harmless color, IN.
der a New Jersey statute, was de.
clared valid prohibition. State We
!, Newton, so N. j. 534.
A statute Of Iowa absolutely pro
hibiting the sale of imitation butter
bearing the yellow color of butte,
made from pure milk Or cream was
held valid. State VS. Packing Go
l24 Iowa 1923. f.''}'