Legal Document

331 U.S. 432 67 Supreme Court Reporter 1283 91 L.Ed. 1585 UNITED STATESv.WALSH. Number 718. Argued April 29, 1947. Decided May 19, On appeal from the District of United States for Southern California. Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, Washington, D.C., appellant. Eugene W. Miller, San Diego, Cal., appellee. Justice MURPHY, delivered opinion Court. 1 This brings before us § 301(h) Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938, 52 Statutes-at-Large 1040, 1042, 21 Code KF62 331(h), Annotated KF65 U5 which prohibits giving a false guaranty that any food, drug, device or cosmetic is not adulterated misbranded within meaning Act. 2 Appellee does business in California, under name Kelp Laboratories. An information has been filed, charging appellee with having given violation 301(h). The following facts have alleged: In February, 1943, gave continuing to Richard Harrison Products, Hollywood, stating no products thereafter shipped latter would be February 24, 1945, while was full force effect, consigned at Holywood, shipment vitamin were allegedly misbranded—thereby making respect shipment. Prior subsequent date shipment, Products engaged introducing delivering introduction into interstate commerce quantities product supplied by 3 moved dismiss on ground it did state an offense. argument applies only relative whereas alleged here consignee origin, there allegation purchased order some one outside California intended sell its rather than intrastate business. oral sustaining appellee's contention granting motion dismiss. case direct States. 4 Drug, rests upon constitutional power resident Congress regulate commerce. Article 1, 8, cl. 3. To end public health safety might advanced, seeks keep channels free deleterious, articles specified types. versus Dotterweich, 320 277, 280, 64 134, 88 48. It setting various sections must viewed. 5 But 301(h), we are concerned, speak specifically terms. 'giving undertaking referred section 303(c)(2), false,' exception being as person who, turn, relied similar whom he received good faith article.1 Nothing face limits application guaranties relating introduced From all appears, proscription plainly extends statutory guaranty, without regard character question, those who shipments. 6 Nor do find limitation type proposes reference made 303(c)(2).2 That simply define falsification prohibited Instead spelling out matter, adopts 303(c)(2) 'a signed by, containing address of, residing article, effect * such article misbranded, this Act, designating Act.' fact relieves holder criminal penalties provided 303(a) violating 301(a) carry over Section delivery illicit articles,3 liabilities if therein described. 301(h)has adopted description entirely different purpose informing persons what kind may falsely. other words, s directed illegal shipments, guaranties. Guaranties described used dealers connection either shipments outlawed 7 true, course, protecting dealer 'in 301(a),' thereby relieving him liability reships goods where case, regularly therefore need imposes guarantor turns false. And attaches even particular renders one. 8 significant had counterpart predecessor statute, Food Drugs 1906, 34 768, et seq. Under 9 could prosecuted shipping present statute. If subject otherwise attach dealer. result liable account unless Steinhardt Bros. & company States, Cir., 191 KF105 F3 798, 800; Charles L. Heinle Specialty Co., 175 299, 300, 301. There issuing 1938 added new form 303(c)(2). We impossible say framers useless achieving same reached 1906 provision. thus conclude definitely proscribes wholly partly irrespective whether leads instance Such construction consistent A manufacturer processor ordinarily way knowing dealer, whose includes sales, will redistribute guarantees his clearly intends assure ncurring ny more likely engage distribution independent check product. possibility give rise strong enough make reasonable prohibition him, though them actually distribution. By means, evils sought eliminate cut down their source effectiveness Act's enforcement greatly enhanced. 10 So construed, raises difficulties. clause Constitution interpreted so deny effective regulation Where depends attaching regardless transaction issue character, concerns generally commerce, act. case. 11 judgment accordingly reversed. 12 Reversed. 13 JACKSON (dissenting). 14 Stretch will, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions cannot cover charge crime. scheme crime 'The commerce' goods. 331(a) (d), 331(a, d). 15 since many shippers buy others know precise ingredients, allowed escape violator, acted trace responsibility another. producing undertaking, statute requires shall conditioned 'to 331(a), 331(d), article' forbidden stated paragraphs (Emphasis added.) 1043, 333(c), 333(c). 16 noticed but repeated bond required violation' No here; these never seems think grounds expecting possibly, probably, perhaps pretty certainly, eventually committed. 17 Of assured committed offense fallen back guarantor, sufficient. punish responsible person, 'referred in' 331(h). 18 Government now exact guarantee, expressly violation,' violation. Until alleged, plays role all. afford cause action false, quite For prosecution purposes neither nor 331(d) alleged. only, proved, put proof. recall when breach condition bond. whole plan substituted violator became faith. decision makes new, original moving interstatecommerce. 19 should take liberties expanding statutes sovereign once considered duty explicit entitled doubt. except device, cosmetic; 303(c)(3), false.' provides 'for violated establishes 301(a), 301(d), not, provisions 404 505, commerce.' misbranded.'

Classification Label: 7