No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 85 



There is no Pennsylvania pure food statute which excludes, or 

 requires the obliteration of, any labels placed on foods under the 

 United States Food and Drugs Act, nor is there any Pennsylvania 

 statute which interferes with the inspection by the Federal authorities 

 of goods eitliei- in original packages, or upon the shelves of retail 

 merchants. 



The precise question then, is whether a Pennsylvania statute may 

 be enforced even if its provisions go farther than the Federal law, 

 but do not interfere with the operation of the Federal statute. 



Referring again to the much discussed case of McDermott vs. Wis- 

 consin, it is seen that the Court was careful to say in terms that the 

 regulations of Congress would not prevent enforcement of similar 

 regulations by a state for the protection of its people. 



Mr. Justice Day said, page 131 : 



''While these regulations are within the power of Congress, 

 it by no means follows that the State is not permitted to make 

 regulations, with a view to the protection of its people against 

 fraud or imposition by impure food or drugs. This subject 

 was fully considered by this court in Savage v. Jones, 225 U. 

 S. 501, 5G L. Ed. 1182, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715, in which the 

 power of the state to make regulations concerning the same sub- 

 ject matter, reasonable in their terms, and not in conflict with 

 the act of Congress, was recognized and stated, and certain 

 regulations of the state of Indiana were held not to be in- 

 consistent with the food and drugs act of Congress." 



Again, on pages 133, 134: 



'^Conceding to the state the authority to make regulations 

 consistent with the Federal laio for the further protection of 

 its citizens against impure and mishranded food and drugs, 

 we think to permit such regulation as is embodied in this 

 statute is to permit a state to discredit and burden legitimate 

 Federal regulations of interstate commerce, to destroy rights 

 arising out of the Federal statute which have accrued both 

 to the government and the shipper, and to impair the effect 

 of a Federal law which has been enacted under the Constitu 

 tional power of Congress over the subject." 



The essence of the decision is found in these words, pages 132-134: 



"To require the removal or destruction before the goods are 

 sold of the evidence which Congress has by tlie food and drugs 

 act, as we shall see, provided, may be examined to determine 

 the compliance or non-compliance with the regulations of the 

 Federal law, is beyond the power of the state. The Wisconsin 

 act ivhich permits the sale of articles subject to the regulations 

 of interstate commerce only upon condition that they contain 

 the exclusive labels required by the statute is an act in excess 

 of its legitimate poicer." 



