86 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



The question you propound is practically settled by the case of 

 Savage vs. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 56 L. Ed. 1182. 



That was a suit to restrain the State chemist of Indiana from 

 enforcing an act of that state relating to concentrated commereial 

 feeding stuffs. It was alleged that the Indiana act which required 

 certain labels to be affixed to the package, disclosing in part the 

 ingredients and also required that certain stamps, purchased from the 

 state chemist, should be attached as an inspection fee, interfered with 

 interstate commerce and also because Congress had legislated upon 

 the subject by the National Food and Drugs Act, its jurisdiction 

 was exclusive, and therefore the Indiana Act could not be enforced 

 as to packages received from outside the state and sold by the im- 

 porting purchaser in the same packages. 



The court held that the act was not an unconstitutional regulation 

 of interstate commerce, and also, as stated in the syllabus in 56 Law. 

 Ed. 1183, that: 



"Congress did not by the passage of the Food and Drugs Act 

 of June 30, 1906, for the prevention of adulteration and mis- 

 branding of foods and drugs when the subject of interstate 

 commerce preclude the enactment of the Indiana Act prohibit- 

 ing sales of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs in the orig- 

 inal packages, unless there be a compliance as to inspection and 

 analysis and the disclosure of ingredients ******* and with 

 its incidental provision for the filing of a certificate, for regis- 

 tration, and for labels and stamps." 



Mr. Justice Hughes, writing the opinion of the Court, said, page 

 524: 



'The State cannot, under cover of exerting its police powers, 

 undertake what amounts essentially to a regulation of inter- 

 state commerce, or impose a direct burden upon that com- 

 merce." (citing many authorities). 



"But when the loeal police regulation has real relation to 

 the suitable protection of the people of the State, and is reason- 

 able in its requirements, it is not invalid because it may in- 

 cidentally affect interstate commerce, provided it does not 

 conflict until legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to its 

 constitutional authority." (Citing many authorities). 



And on page 526, quoting from Plumley vs. Mass., 155 TJ. S. 461, 

 he said: 



"Such legislation may, indeed, directly, or incidentally affect 

 trade in such products transported from one state to another 

 state. But that circumstance does not show that laws of the 

 character alluded to are inconsistent with the power of Con- 

 gress to regulate commerce among the several states." 



Again, on page 529 : 



"The object of the food and drugs act is to prevent adultera- 

 tion and misbranding, as therein defined. It prohibits the 



