Commissioner of Agriculture. 103 



sumers. Doubtless the Legislature could provide that where 

 butter contains any preservative except salt or sugar the pack- 

 age should be clearly marked with a label stating such fact, and 

 it might require any notice adapted to informing the public of 

 the nature and treatment of the article offered for sale. This 

 it has not done, but it has absolutely forbidden the sale. Nor 

 is the legislation similar to that before the court in the vinegar 

 case. In that case there was no prohibition of vinegar produced 

 from other materials than cider. The forbidden thing was the 

 use of artificial coloring matter, which was not a necessary 

 ingredient of the article produced, but served the sole purpose 

 of preventing the consumer distinguishing between the differ- 

 ent kinds of vinegar. In the present case the object of the 

 forbidden article used is not to practice any deception, but to 

 prevent decay in a product which, without the presence of some 

 foreign substance, naturally becomes unfit for use in a very 

 short period. The effect therefore of the statute is to pro- 

 hibit the preservation of dairy products except by salt in butter 

 and cheese and sugar in condensed milk, and their sale, no mat- 

 ter how harmless the ingredients used for that purpose may 

 be, and no matter how efficiently they attain their purpose. 



It is sought, however, to uphold this statute under the prin- 

 ciple of the milk cases on the theory that it is a legislative 

 determination that preservatives other than salt and sugar are 

 unwholesome adulterations of dairy products. As pointed out 

 by the learned courts below, there is no legislative declaration 

 to that effect. Passing, however, that consideration, there is a 

 more serious difficulty in the way of such a course. If the stat- 

 ute had provided that the admixture of any substance with 

 dairy products other than salt or sugar should be deemed an 

 adulteration, and declared such dairy products when so adul- 

 terated unwholesome, the case would resemble the milk case, 

 and the question would be presented whether such far-reaching 

 restrictions could be upheld as reasonable regulations in favor 

 of public health. As to that question we express no opinion. 

 But this provision of the statute is not aimed at adulterations. 



