Court Opinion

ID: 6737075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:19:18.562856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:49.511115
License: Public Domain

*225On Petition for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing, in which he complains that this court has not passed upon the sufficiency of the information. The court had received the impression that this was a friendly suit to determine the constitutionality of the 1911 law, and that no ruling was desired upon minor questions. However, we are and always have been satisfied that the amended information states an offense, and the demurrer was properly overruled.
The petition for rehearing also complains because the case of McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115, 57 L. ed. 754, 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 984, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431, was not discussed. This court believes that such decision is not in point. The gist of its ruling is that a state may not exercise its police power in intrastate matters in such a way that it in effect interferes with interstate commerce. The Illinois manufacturer wished to ship an article from Illinois to Wisconsin, and was obliged to use the United States label in order to cross the state line. The minute that he crossed the state line, the Wisconsin law required him to remove the United States label and substitute another. Thus the Wisconsin law, though pretending to regulate local commerce, in effect prohibited commerce from Illinois to Wisconsin. In the case at bar the only hardship imposed upon the foreign shipper is an increase in cost, according to its own evidence, of 1-J cents per pound, upon its lard in pails. This additional expense likewise falls upon a local manufacturer, so that there is no descrimination against the shipper from another state.
We might also state that Professor Ladd knew the exact amount of lard that he was buying, and that he was not deceived in any manner by appellant. On the contrary all the evidence points to the conclusion that the sale, arrest, and nominal fine were pursuant to an understanding between the pure food commissioner and the defendant, in order that the law might be tested in the courts.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Burke, Bruce, Goss, JJ. •