Opinion ID: 230131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Interstate Transaction.

Text: 7 Rice, concerned about a lump in his wife's breast, had been advised by a business friend, while temporarily in Los Angeles, to contact appellant. On phoning appellant's place of business in Hollywood, Rice was informed that she was then in Chicago. When Rice returned to his home in a suburb of Chicago he made an appointment with appellant for an examination of his wife. Mrs. Rice and been previously examined by her family doctor who had suspected a possible cancer and suggested an immediate biopsy. Appellant concluded from her examination of Mrs. Rice on April 23, 1948 by means of one of her instruments that the lump was not a cancer but was caused by a fungus that had spread through her digestive system into the liver. 8 Appellant at that time gave Mr. and Mrs. Rice a copy of a pamphlet describing the alleged qualities of her devices 9 and recommended treatments with the Drown Radio Therapeutic Instrument by a Dr. John, who practiced in Chicago. Mrs. Rice commenced taking the treatments and appellant advised their continuation upon re-examination of Mrs. Rice in September, 1948. The treatments continued until, on October 28, 1948, Rice went to the Drown Laboratories in Hollywood and personally purchased the device in question. Rice returned to Blue Island, Illinois, and his wife used the instrument to treat the lump in her breast. 8 Appellant first contends that the purchase of the Drown Radio Therapeutic Instrument by Rice at the Drown Laboratories in Hollywood was a wholly intrastate transaction and, therefore, not within the scope of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It is alleged that transportation in interstate commerce or an obligation to so transport on the part of the appellant is an essential element of the offense; that since any transportation in interstate commerce was brought about by the purchaser, the seller, Dr. Drown, was not criminally responsible. 9 Appellant relies upon a number of cases dealing with the power of a state to tax goods moving in interstate commerce. 10 They are not in point since the question in such cases does not concern the power of Congress to regulate, but whether a particular exercise of state power in view of its nature and operation must be deemed in conflict with the federal power. The power of a state to tax is not necessarily inconsistent with the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. 11 Minnesota v. Blasius, 1933, 290 U.S. 1, 54 S.Ct. 34, 78 L.Ed. 131; Stafford v. Wallace, 1922, 258 U.S. 495, 42 S.Ct. 397, 66 L.Ed. 735; Bacon v. Illinois, 1913, 227 U.S. 504, 33 S.Ct. 299, 57 L.Ed. 615; Swift & Co. v. United States, 1905, 196 U.S. 375, 25 S.Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518. 10 Appellant argues that federal power over interstate commerce is limited to transportation. We do not agree. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce may be exercised to the utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than those that are prescribed by the Constitution. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed. 23. Where goods are purchased in one state for transportation to another, the commerce includes the purchase quite as much as it does the transportation. Currin v. Wallace, 1939, 306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441; Lemke v. Farmers' Grain Co., 1922, 258 U.S. 50, 42 S.Ct. 244, 66 L.Ed. 458; Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 1921, 257 U.S. 282, 42 S.Ct. 106, 66 L.Ed. 239. The place where title technically passes is not significant. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 1938, 303 U.S. 453, 58 S.Ct. 656, 82 L.Ed. 954; N. L. R. B. v. Levaur, 1 Cir., 1940, 115 F.2d 105, certiorari denied 312 U.S. 682, 61 S.Ct. 550, 85 L.Ed. 1120. Even if the sale to Rice with knowledge that he intended to take the device to Illinois be not considered part of the stream or flow of commerce, a flow of commerce is not essential to the federal power to regulate. The instances in which the metaphor stream of commerce has been used are but particular, and not exclusive, illustrations of the protective power which Congress may exercise. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 1937, 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893. The power to regulate wholly intrastate activities because of their relation to or effect upon interstate commerce is now established. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 1948, 334 U.S. 219, 68 S.Ct. 996, 92 L.Ed. 1328; Wickard v. Filburn, 1942, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122; United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 1942, 315 U.S. 110, 62 S.Ct. 523, 86 L.Ed. 726; United States v. Darby, 1941, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609; N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra; Stafford v. Wallace, supra. The power of Congress to regulate the sale of a drug within one state where transportation to another state by either the purchaser or seller is contemplated by the parties therefore cannot be successfully disputed. 11 Having determined that Congress had the power to regulate the sale in question, we next consider whether Congress intended to exercise that power. Appellant asserts that transportation in interstate commerce or an obligation to so transport on the part of the seller is an essential element to criminal responsibility. The statute prohibits The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug,    or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(a) (our emphasis). Appellant's interpretation fails to give meaning to the entire wording of the statute. Referring to this Act, the Supreme Court of the United States has said: The purposes of this legislation thus touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Regard for these purposes should infuse construction of the legislation if it is to be treated as a working instrument of government and not merely as a collection of English words. United States v. Dotterweich, 1943, 320 U.S. 277, 280, 64 S.Ct. 134, 136, 88 L.Ed. 48. See United States v. Walsh, 1947, 331 U.S. 432, 434, 67 S.Ct. 1283, 91 L.Ed. 1585. Having in mind the broad purpose of the Act, protection of the public health, we believe that Congress intended to prohibit the delivery of a misbranded device by a seller to the purchaser where the seller has knowledge that the purchaser intends to introduce the device into interstate commerce by taking it into another state. The Tenth Circuit adopted this interpretation of the statute in a recent case, United States v. Sanders, 10 Cir., 196 F.2d 895, where a seller was held to have violated an injunction by selling misbranded drugs intrastate knowing that the purchasers intended to take the drugs out of the state. Such an interpretation gives reasonable meaning to each word of the statutory prohibition. A comparable interpretation has been given to similar language in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. See Tobin v. Grant, D.C.N.D.Cal.1948, 79 F.Supp. 975. 12 The appellant endeavors to distinguish the Sanders case by pointing out that the defendant there was engaged regularly in an interstate business of selling. The Sanders case, however, does not turn on the nature of the seller's business, but rather upon whether the seller had knowledge that the misbranded drugs would be taken out of the state. The Act does not require a business; it prohibits each sale in violation of the statutory prohibition. 21 U.S.C. A. § 331(a). 13 The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the sale to Rice constituted delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. Both by recommending that Mrs. Rice receive treatments by the Drown Radio Therapeutic Instrument and through the descriptive circular that was given to Mr. and Mrs. Rice in Chicago, the appellant stimulated interest in her device and led Mr. Rice to believe that her instrument far surpasses any other known method of diagnosis or therapy. The appellant knew the device was to be used to treat a lump in Mrs. Rice's breast, and it is obvious that she contemplated that Mr. Rice would take the device back to his Illinois home. The invoice of sale states that the instrument was sold to Mr. Edgar Rice, 13005 Greenwood Ave., Blue Island, Illinois. 14