The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1908-02-07
THE BOB VEAL DECISIVN'
Position Taken by Vermont Supreme
Cour, Opens Door for Many Abuses.

We believe Judge Tyler oil the supreme
court of Vermont was night, and those
who differed with him were wrong, when
he held that the question whether caves
les than four weeks old can be sofa lot
food purposes j. within the police power
OF the state, and that there Is no conflict
al authority between the federal and state
laws in this matter.
The majority decision OF the court Is
that the law passed in 1896 in relation TO
bob veal" is null and void because It Is
in conflict with the interstate commerce
act. The law in question provides that
"a person who sells or offers to sell or
keeps with intent to sell for food pur-
poses, or ships out OF the state, or Keeps
with intent 10 ship out OF the state iof
food purpose, the flesh OF any animal or
fowl which died or was killed when dis
eased or the flesh OF a calf which was
less than 50 pounds, dressed weight, when
killed, shall be imprisoned not more than
one year, or fined not more than s5Oo OF
both"
In the first place We can not know for
a certainty that bob veal Is TO DC
shipped out OF the state. Under the pro
lection that the courts decision would al
ford, there is nothing to prevent dealer
i'm this stuff from selling his entire prod
the interstate commerce act passed by
congress. There may be no actual inter
state commerce involved, and yet led
eral statute is made to prevent our peo-
ple from guarding the purity OF their
food supply.
Moreover. if this state law can be in
terpreted TO be in conflict with the led.
eral statute in relation to freedom oil
comrieree between states, what right has
this or any other state to pass law TO
prevent killing or causing to be killed
FOR the purpose OF sale for food DIS
eased meat which the owner intends TO
ship to Boston or some other point or
possibly sell at home, as in the case OF
bob veal? Both these products are deem
ed unfit for food. Can we as people
say through our law-making representa-,
Z, tives that meat dealer can handle the
one with immunity and be punished Tor
dealing in the other? Is one operation
any more in conflict with the interstate
commerce law than the other, particularly
liz the product in each instance Is actually
to be shipped out OF the state! Is our
law against diseased meat also null and
void because it interferes with interstate
commerce! -
Ii we cannot protect the public from
unfit food, produced within our state
boundaries, because the producers may
possibly want to ship it out OF the state,
where is the line Of limitation to be
drawn between legitimate laws for the
protection of our food products?. Why
will not a similar application Of the, rule
laid down by our supreme tribunal APP
Div to the adulteration of any food prod
net, especially if the ingredients are not
harmful but simply cheaper than the
genuine article?
1t seems to us that our supreme bench
has opened the door by this interpreta..
ton to an almost limitless number OF
abuses of our food laws, even if the APP
plication of the theory may not also be
made to embrace still other police pow
ers of the state. For example, if our
state has no right to prevent immature
meats from being handled in the way OF
food traffic within our own boundaries,
can we punish violators of laws for the
promotion of pure milk, when lacteal
fluid Is now being shipped to Boston and
other points out of the state? How can