The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-12-18
WON
THE LARD
FIGHT

| lUlll
Continued From Page One.
Of the laws Of this state; that az
weights shall be net, onv
wrapper or container, and that every
lot of lard, lard compound or Iaru
substitute unless sold in bulk shall
be put up in pals or containers holu.
ing one, three or i've pounds me-
weight or some whole multiple Oh
these numbers and not n fract!on
thereof. Defendant is a corporation
having packing houses in Chlcaso;;
Omaha and other large cities, d
maintaining q branch Establishment
in the city of Fargo, N. D., to Wnlcn
it's goods are shipped in car load lots
to be distributed therefrom. In Octo-
Der, 1911, the state food commissioner
went to this branch establishment IN
Fargo and asked to purchase three
pounds Of lard. He was sold a pan
containing two pounds and six ounces.
The sale and the resultant arrest were
made to test the constitutionallty OIL
the 1911 law. The defendant claim
ed that the law was unconstitutional
for seven reasons, the first reason De-
ing subdivided into six parts. =,
Cd Plaintiffs contention IS that
the law is unconstitutional because 1t
is arbitrary, unreasonable and not
| justified under the police power OF
the state. (a) 1t is commended h
the 1911 law was unnecessary because
| the 1907 law providing for the display
Of net weights was ample to protect
the consumer against fraud. Held,
| that the legislature has primarily the
| choice of laws regulating weights ana
the court will not interfere with this
choice. The burden is upon the per-
son attacking the constitutionallty OF
the law to show beyond a reasonable
doubt hat the constitution has been
violated, that in the case at bar the
defendant has failed in his proof and
on the contrary, by it's own evidence,
has shown that the law was being
artfully evaded, thus furnishing
abundant reason for the 1911 enact
ment. % 1t is contended that the
law is unreasonable because it inter-
feres with a custom of the lard in
dustry extending over a period of
more than thirty years. Held, that
this is no objection to the law. The
fact that an abuse has existed for
thirty years does not foreclose the
state from an attempt to regulate the
same. (c) It is contended that the
law is unreasonable because it i'm
poses an additional expense Upon the
packers. Held, pom an examination
of the evidence, that this contention
is not well founded. The defendant is
already supplying a private firm with
net weight pals hat would comply
with the laws of North Dakota. No
reason is shown why those pals could
not be Autographed with the Armour
brand and used in North Dakota, (d)
1t is further urged that the law is I'M
necessary and unreasonable because
in any event the customers are not
prejudiced. That they are paying
merely the price of bulk lard plus the
extra expense Of the tin pals. Held,
upon an examination of the evidence,
that h consumer pays much more
than h mere cost of the container.
n cost includes expensive advertise
ing upon the pail itself and a probable
profit to the middlemen upon the cost
Of the pail as well as of the lard. (e)
1t is urged that the law is ~unreason-
able as Interfering with the regular
custom of all trades, it being contend
ed that butchers and grocers include
the weight of the paper bag with the
goods sold. Held, that. even if rue it
furnishes no reason why laws should
not be enacted to regulate this abuse.
% 1t is commended hat the enforce
ment of this law will drive the pack
ers to use bulk lard only, to the detri-
ment Of the commodity. Held, that
from the evidence, the packers never
furnished over 40 per CEN of the lard
to the trade in this state and this de-
fefdant furnishes but between 5 per
cent n 10 per cent Of the lard used,
and even should it withdraw from the
state 1t would not materially affect the
lard industry. The authorities upon
the subject of the control of weights
n measures by compelling ever
weights in containers are collected IN
the opinion.
2. The law of 1911 does not inter-
fere with the guarantees of the consti-
tuition relative to the right of freedom
OF contract and the equal protection
OF h law. Under the police power
the state can interfere with private
rights when necessary to protect the
public from fraud or the opportunity
FOR fraud. Whatever injury one par
tlcular citizen may suffer IS compen-
stated to him by the general protection
AFFORDED him against other evils, by
such police power.
3. Said statute does not constitute
NAAS NAhAA VI "1Inn1T HlIn
process of law.
4. The claim of appellant that the
iard industry is singled out from all
articles of food and subjected to res1-
iatlon is not supported by the evidence
In this case. Every article of food or
beverage as we'll as ordinary articles
OF commerce such as paints. formalde-
LyuI, paris green, ETC., are regulated
by he same or similar acts. The 1911
law S~neHlhn2IIJ- T-nDftNn- ~1 Z,
compounds, and lard substitutes and
the manner Of their regulation in
pals, but this is a mere incident of
the law. The object of the law is TO
prevent the opportunity for fraud in
the sale Of all articles of food,
o. me claim of the defendant that
the Jaw IS in violation of the com
nerce clause of the federal constitu-
ton Is not sustained. Congress- has
control of commerce between the sau
eral states, with foreign nations and
among the Indian tribes, while the
states nave control over intra-sta+a
commerce.. The pail of lard sold 70 tba
1000 commissioner was shipned int
the state in a railway car and was H.
SELF contained in a crate containinp
Imehty slnllar pals. The original
paenase was either the railway car
or tne crate and had been hroken
prior to the sale. Thus the saIe Ir.s
a local or intra-state t~ransaction Tho
cases upon this phase are collected ~
the opinion. q IN
.. It Is commended by defendant
ina the act should be given a rea-
sonabie Interpretation, thus permit
nng = sale Of short or gross weight
pal,s u LABELED with tMe net weight.
r1eia' Ihat the import OF the law is
pam n that the construction re-
Quired BY the .s.sN.n1 -.