Evening star., 1951-01-16
Area Unaffected
ByMilk Ruling,
Producers Say
High Court InvoIiddtes
Pusteurizution Law
| Of Madison, Wis.

Spokesmen for the Maryland.
Virginia Milk Producers Associa-
ton maintained today that their
operations are unaffected by
Supreme Court ruling striking
down a regulation in the Madison
(Wis.) milkshed.
The Supreme Court yesterday
invalidated a provision of the
Madison ordinance in a case which
ATTRACTED considerable interest
here.
The Wisconsin city required
that milk sold there be pasteur-
lied within a smile radius. This
provision was attacked by an I1li-
nois milk company. which has
pasteurization plants in towns IS
and IS miles away.
In a 6-to-3 decision the Su-
|preme Court accepted the COM
pany's contention. The company
said its milk meets standards Of
Chicago and other cities and de-
clared the Madison ordinance vio-
lated the interstate commerce
clause of the Constitution.
Alternatives Available.
Writing for the court majority.
Justice Clark said the pasteurizing
provision constituted IAN eco
nomic barrier protecting major
local industry from competition
from without the State" The
opinion said the city cannot do
this, "even in its unquestioned
power to protect the health and
safety of its people, if reasonable
non discriminatory alternatives
adequate to conserve legitimate
local interests are available"
Justice Clark added that it ap-
pears such alternatives are avail
able.
The complaining milk company
also asked the Supreme Court to
overrule another provision of the
Madison ordinance. This provi-
sion states that the Madison
Health Department is not required
to inspect farms situated more
than Is miles from town.
Returned to State Courts.
The high court declined to pass
on this point because the Wis
constr courts have not ruled on
the section. The issue was re-
turned to the State courts for
further proceedings not incon-
sistent with the principles an
nounced in this opinion"
Justice Black wrote a dissenting
opinion in which Justices Douglas
and Minton concurred. It said the
State courts had found the Smile
regulation represents "a good faith
attempt to safeguard public health
by making adequate sanitation in
spections possible"
The dissent declared that, "since
the days of Chief Justice Marshall,
Federal courts have left States
and municipalities free to pass
bona fide health regulations, sub
ject only to the paramount au-
thority of Congress, if it decides to
assume control"
Regulations Not Similar.
The Maryland Virginia produc-
ers' spokesmen contended the
Madison regulations are not SINH
lar to the Districts. They said
no effort is made here to require
pasteurizing equipment to be near
the city.
The spokesmen noted that milk
sold here must. by Act of Congress,
be wholesome and pure. Inspec-
ton regulations supplementing
the act are fixed by the Commis-
sioners.
The spokesmen said the only
limitations imposed on producers.
insofar as proximity is concerned.
is the practical matter of how far
from the District the local in
spectors can travel on the money
made available to them.
Milk sold here could be brought
any distance if dairy farms are
approved by District inspectors
and if the transportation is eco
nomically profitable to producers,
the spokesman declared.