82 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



such regular clerk or employee and the oleomargarine is marked and 

 set apart and the name placed on each package, in the place licensed,, 

 and delivered as and when the other goods are delivered, such a 

 transaction would be within the license of the retail dealer. 



It may be that there are retail dealers in cities lohose regular trade 

 extends into outlying districts. In such instances sales made, as 

 above indicated, on orders taken in such territory, would, be loithin 

 the license. 



But I am> of opinion that a license to sell oleomargarine at retail 

 does not give the holder thereof the right to send agents and can- 

 vassers to take orders, especially for oleomtargarine, into territory 

 into which the business of such retailer would not ordinarily extend, 

 particularly into other cities and towns in which there are other sim- 

 ilar licenses. 



Very truly yours, 



WM. M. HARGEST, 

 Deputy Attorney General. 



OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 



Harrisburg, Pa., November 19, 1915. 



Hon. James Foust, Dairy and Food Commissioner, Harrisburg, Pa.: 



vSir: Your favor of recent date was received. You propound the 

 following question : 



"If a box containing two or more dozen bottles of catsup, 

 properly sealed and labeled in conformity with the National 

 Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 190G, and shipped from 

 another state to a retail merchant in Pennsylvania, is opened 

 and the bottles placed upon tlie shelves of the store for sale, 

 and upon purchase by an agent of this Department and on 

 analysis, the catsup is found to violate the Pure Food Laws 

 of this State, can the l*ennsylvania laws be enforced?" 



With your request you submit a copy of a letter of the State Food 

 and Drug Commissioner of Indianapolis and an opinion of the At- 

 torney General of Indiana, all to the effect that there can be no 

 interference with a grocer who sells to his customer a single bottle 

 of catsup, if it complie.s with the National Food and Drugs Act, 

 even though it violates the laws of the State, when such bottle of 

 catsup was a part of a shipment from another state and originally 

 packed in a larger case or box. 



Your inquiry and the correspondence submitted are the result 

 of a misconstruction of the case of McDermott vs. Wisconsin, 228 

 U. S. 115, 51 Latvyers Edition 754- The impression prevails since the 

 opinion in that case, that a state cannot enforce its pure food laws 

 against single, sealed packages of food misbranded or adulterated 



