Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/18
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:10:48+00:00

Document:
Argued: Oct. 16, 17, 1944.
The limited writ of certiorari in this case was granted to review petitioners' conviction, affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, for a violation of the Filled Milk Act. 1 The Court was moved to allow the petition in order to examine the contentions that the accused articles of food cannot, under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, be banned from commerce when these compounds are nutritionally sufficient and not 'in imitation or semblance' of milk or any milk product within the meaning of the statute and are not sold as milk or a milk product.
The contentions which are raised by petitioners to avoid their conviction were not dealt with in our prior decision which upheld the act's validity upon demurrer to an earlier indictment which charged its violation. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234. 2 Since these issues are important to those affected by the act, certiorari was granted. 321 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 845. Questions of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, similar to those presented here, had arisen from state filled milk legislation with varying results. 3 Consideration by this Court of the filled milk legislation of Kansas appears in Sage Stores et al. v. Kansas, 323 U.S. 32, 65 S.Ct. 9.
The indictment charged the petitioner corporation and the individual petitioners, its president and vice president, with violation of the statute by making interstate shipments of the compounds contrary to Section 2. 4 The convictions and sentences are assailed as improper on three grounds: first, that the petitioner's compounds were not covered by the rationale of the Filled Milk Act; second, that the Act did not cover the compounds because they were not 'in imitation or semblance' of a milk product; and third, that since the compounds were wholesome food products and sold without fraud, in any sense, Congress could not constitutionally prohibit their interstate shipment.
First. As a basis for petitioner's position that the Filled Milk Act does not cover their compounds, it is argued that the nutritional deficiencies of filled milks led to the Act's enactment so as to protect the public health. These deficiencies occurred because the extraction of the butterfat from the whole milk removed a large proportion of the fat soluble vitamins A and D. The hearings on the bill and the course of the debate make it quite clear that this vitamin deficiency was of major importance in bringing about the enactment of the act. 5 Petitioners then offered in the trial court to prove that since the passage of the Filled Milk Act in 1923, the technique of fortification of foods with vitamins A and D had advanced to a point where these vitamins could be restored to skim milk compounds so that the compounds were equally valuable in that respect to whole milk products and that their products had been so enriched. The offer was refused.
Petitioners' position as to the legislative purpose of the act was not accepted by the trial or reviewing court. We agree with those courts. While, as we have stated above, the vitamin deficiency was an efficient cause in bringing about the enactment of the Filled Milk Act, it was not the sole reason for its passage. A second reason was that the compounds lend themselves readily to substitution for or confusion with milk products. Although, so far as the record shows, filled milk compounds as enriched are equally wholesome and nutritious as milk with the same content of calories and vitamins, they are artificial or manufactured foods which are cheaper to produce than similar whole milk products. When compounded and canned, whether enriched or not, they are indistinguishable by the ordinary consumer from processed natural milk. The purchaser of these compounds does not get evaporated milk. This situation has not changed since the enactment of the act. The possibility and actuality of confusion, deception and substitution was appraised by Congress. 6 The prevention of such practices or dangers through control of shipments in interstate commerce is within the power of Congress. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. at page 148, 58 S.Ct. at page 781, 82 L.Ed. 1234; cf. McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 63, 24 S.Ct. 769, 779, 49 L.Ed. 78, 1 Ann.Cas. 561. The manner by which Congress carries out this power, subject to constitutional objections which are considered hereinafter in part 'Third' of this opinion, is within legislative discretion, 7 even though the method chosen is prohibition of manufacture, sale or shipment. 8 Congress evidently determined that exclusion from commerce of filled milk compounds in the semblance of milk was an appropriate method to strike at evils which it desired to suppress. Although it now is made to appear that one evil, the nutritional deficiencies, has been overcome, the evil of confusion remains and Congress has left the statute in effect. It seems to us clear, therefore, that there is no justification for judicial interference to withdraw these assumedly nondeleterious compounds from the prohibitions of the act. It follows from the point of view of the coverage of the act that it was not erroneous to refuse to consider the evidence which petitioners offered as to the wholesomeness of the compounds.
Second. The petitioners urge another reason why the act does not cover their compounds. This ground is that the compounds are not 'in imitation or semblance' of milk within the meaning of the act's definition of filled milk. Section 1(c), supra, p.22. Compare State v. Carolene Products Co., 346 Mo. 1049, 10601062, 144 S.W.2d 153. We agree that the product must be in imitation or semblance of milk to fall within the prohibition of the act.
Petitioners rely upon the admitted fact that no ingredient is added to the skim milk, oil and vitamins to alter the appearance of the compound. Accepting the evidence that the compounds are indistinguishable from whole milk products by purchasers, it is urged that they cannot be held to be in 'imitation or semblance' of milk unless the manufacturer purposefully adds something to make the mixture simulate milk. It is said Congress adopted this language from § 64(3) of the Farms and Markets Law of New York. 9 Prior to that time, the Court of Appeals of New York, in construing the words 'imitation or semblance' as they appeared in another section of the New York law directed at the regulation of oleomargarine, had interpreted them as denouncing trade in oleomargarine only when the manufacturer consciously and purposefully attempted to create an imitation or semblance of milk products. People v. Guiton, 210 N.Y. 1, 8, 9, 103 N.E. 773, L.R.A.1915A, 757. The adoption of these words after this interpretation and in the face of the Congressional knowledge of the New York decision and of the controversy over the effect of the use of such language, 10 petitioners contend, brings into play the general rule that adoption of the wording of a statute from another legislative jurisdiction, carries with it the previous judicial interpretations of the wording. Willis v. Eastern Trust & Banking Co., 169 U.S. 295, 307, 18 S.Ct. 347, 352, 42 L.Ed. 752; cf. James v. Appel, 192 U.S. 129, 135, 24 S.Ct. 222, 223, 48 L.Ed. 377; Joines v. Patterson, 274 U.S. 544, 549, 47 S.Ct. 706, 708, 71 L.Ed. 1194.
Here we cannot be sure that Congress, deliberately or otherwise, adopted the wording from the New York statute. In § 2 of the Federal act of August 2, 1886, 24 Stat. 209, taxing and regulating oleomargarine, somewhat similar language occurs. 11 That may be the source of the phrase. Furthermore the Guiton case did not interpret the section of the New York statute upon which petitioners contend the Federal act is modeled. In the Guiton case, the Court of Appeals explained the force of 'imitation and semblance' as used in the oleomargarine section, § 38, N.Y.Laws 1909, ch. 9, Consol.Laws N.Y.1909, c. 1. That court relied upon the special statutory definition of oleomargarine in § 30, id., as a reason for its conclusion that the words prohibited only conscious imitation, 210 N.Y. 7, 103 N.E. 775. Oleomargarine was there defined as an article 'in the semblance of butter.' The court thought that as the sale of natural oleomargarine, which might have the 'semblance' of butter was permitted, it was not intended to prohibit products which looked like butter unless the imitation came from choice. As no corresponding definition of filled milk occurs, there could be no certainty that the same result would be reached, if New York had been called upon to interpret section 64.
Finally, as determinative of the intention of Congress to include compounds whose resemblance to milk products arises from their ingredients and not from conscious effort, we note the fact that compounds of this innocent character were specifically included by name in the list of compounds which the Congressional reports pointed out as products which were covered by the proposed act. 12 Petitioner's compounds were themselves so named. The addition of vitamins does not affect their physical likeness to milk products.
In the action of Congress on filled milk there is no prohibition of the shipment of an article of commerce merely because it competes with another such article which it resembles. Such would be the prohibition of the shipment of cotton or silk textiles to protect rayon or nylon or of anthracite to aid the consumption of bituminous coal or of cottonseed oil to aid the soybean industry. Here a milk product, skimmed milk, from which a valuable elementbutterfathas been removed is artificially enriched with cheaper fats and vitamins so that it is indistinguishable in the eyes of the average purchaser from whole milk products. The result is that the compound is confused with and passed off as the whole milk product in spite of proper labeling.
Act of March 4, 1923, 42 Stat. 1486, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 6163; United States v. Carolene Products Co. et al., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 675; Carolene Products Co. et al. v. United States, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 61; Carolene Products Co. et al. v. United States, 321 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 845.
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 149, 58 S.Ct. 778, 782, 82 L.Ed. 1234. H. Rep. No. 355, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 3, 4; S. Rep. No. 987, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., pp. 3, 4; 62 Cong. Rec. pp. 7581, 7616; Hearings, House Committee on Agriculture, H. Res. 6215, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. I, pp. 144, 176, 177; Hearings, Senate Sub-Committee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, H. Res. 8086, 67th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. I, pp. 27, 48, 67, 89, 90, 121124, 143, 177, 226, 266.
See American Law Institute, Model Code of Evidence, ch. 9, Rules 801, 802, 803, pp. 319, 322; Bikle, Judicial Determination of Questions of Fact Affecting the Constitutional Validity of Legislative Action, 38 Harv.L.Rev. 6; Note, The Presentation of Facts Underlying Constitutionality of Statutes, 49 Harv. L. Rev. 631; Morgan, Judicial Notice, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 269, 291294; Note, 30 Col. L. Rev. 360; Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.), Sec. 2555(d), p. 522; Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 209, 55 S.Ct. 187, 191, 79 L.Ed. 281; United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, 154, 58 S.Ct. 778, 784, 82 L.Ed. 1234.
Terry Lee SHANNON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Raymond J. WISE.
SAGE STORES CO. et al. v. STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. MITCHELL.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 64
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 38
 § 30
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.