84 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off Doc 



in the terms 'original unhroken package' as used in the second 

 and tenth sections, and 'unbroken package' in the third section." 

 Within the limitations of its right to regulate interstate com- 

 merce, Congress is manifestly aiming at the contents of the 

 package as it shall reach the customer, for whose protection 

 the act was primarily passed, and it is the branding upon the 

 package which contains the article intended for consumption 

 itself which is the subject matter of regulation. Limiting the 

 requirements of the act as to adulteration and misbranding 

 simply to the outside wrapping or box containing the packages 

 intended to be purchased by the consumer, so that the importer, 

 by removing and destroying such covering, could prevent the 

 operation of the law on the imported article yet unsold, would 

 render the act nugatory and its provision wholly inadequate 

 to accomplish the purpose for which it was passed." 



The Court also said, page 135: 



"In the view, however, Tvhich we take of this case, it is un- 

 necessary to enter upon any extended consideration of the 

 nature and scope of the principles involved in determining what 

 is an original package. For, as we have said, keeping within 

 its Constitutional limitations of authority. Congress may de- 

 termine for itself the character of the means necessary to make 

 its purpose effectual in preventing the shipment in interstate 

 commerce of articles of a harmful character, and to this end 

 may provide the means of inspection, examination, and seizure 

 necessary to enforce the prohibitions of the act." 



And on page 136: 



"To determine the time when an article passes out of inter- 

 state into state jurisdiction for the purpose of taxation is 

 entirely different from deciding when an article which has 

 violated a Federal prohibition becomes immune. The doctrine 

 (of original package) was not intended to limit the right of 

 Congress, now asserted, to keep the channels of interstate com- 

 merce free from the carriage of injurious or fraudulently 

 branded articles, and to choose appropriate means to that 

 end. The legislative means provided in the Federal law for 

 its own enforcement may not be thwarted by state legislation 

 having a direct effect to impair the effectual exercise of such 

 means." 



The Court held that Congress could employ the means to keep 

 interstate commerce free from misbrauded articles, even to an in- 

 spection on the shelves of a retail grocer after the goods had been 

 removed from the "original package," as known in interstate com- 

 merce. 



The Court also held that a State statute which interfered with such 

 supervisory power over the avenues of commerce was an excessive 

 and illegal exercise of the State's power. 



This is the full extent to which the case of McDermott vs. Wisconsin 

 goes. 



