No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. H3 



accoidiug to State laws, if such single packages comply with the 

 provisions of the National Food and Drugs Act of June 30, lOOG, 

 (34 St. at Large, 7GS, Chapter 3JJ15, U. S. Comp. Statt, Supp. 1011, 

 page 1854:). This impression is not justilied by the decision itself. 

 The precise questions in that case were. 



First. Whether the word "package" as used in the Food and Drugs 

 Act was limited to "original package" as understood in interstate 

 commerce, or whether it included the goods upon the shelves of a 

 local merchant for sale. 



Second. Whether the Wisconsin law, which required the goods to 

 contain the exclusive labels provided by that statute, and, in effect, 

 prohibited the labels required under the National Food and Drugs 

 Act, was beyond the power of the state to enforce. 



The plaintitf in error, a retail merchant in Oregon, Wisconsin, 

 was convicted of violating the Wisconsin statute because he had in 

 his possession with intent to sell and offered for sale, "Karo Corn 

 Syrup" which was not labeled according to the Wisconsin law pro- 

 viding that "the mixture or syrups designated in this section shall 

 have no other designation or brand than herein r.equired/' etc. He 

 had purchased from wholesale grocers in Chicago twelve half gallon 

 tin cans of Karo Corn Syrup, the shipments being made in wooden 

 boxes containing the cans, and when the goods were received at the 

 store, the cans were taken from the original boxes and placed on 

 the shelves for sale, at retail. The cans were labeled in accordance 

 with the National Pure Food and Drugs Act. That act provides, 

 as stated in the opinion of McDermott vs. Wisconsin, page 130: 



"And as to food, if it shall be labeled or branded so as 

 to deceive or mislead a purchaser, or purport to be a foreign 

 product when not so, or, if the contents of the package as ori- 

 ginally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part, 

 and other contents placed in such package; or, if the package 

 fail to bear a statement of the label as required, or, if in package 

 form and the contents are stated in terms of weight or measure, 

 and they are not plainly and correctly stated on the outside 

 of the package; or, if the package containing it or its label 

 contain any design or device regarding the ingredients or 

 the substances contained therein which are false or misleading 

 in character, tlie food shall be deemed misbranded." 



The Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Day, said : 



"That the word 'package' or its equivalent expression, as 

 used by Congress in sections 7 and S in defining what shall 

 constitute adulteration and what shall constitute misbranding 

 within the meaning of the act. clearly refers to the innnedinte 

 container of the article which is intended for consumption by 

 the public there can be no question. And it is sufficient, for 

 the decision of these cases, that we consider the extent of the 

 word 'package' as thus used only, and we therefore have no 

 occasion, and do not attempt, to decide what Congress included 



