No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 87 



introduction into any state from any other .state "of any ar- 

 ticle of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded, 

 within the meaning of this act." The purpose is to keep such 

 articles 'out of the channels of interstate commerce, or, if 

 they enter such commerce, to condemn them while being trans- 

 ported or when the^^ have reached their destinations, provided 

 they remain unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken pack- 

 ages.' " 



And on page 532: 



"Can it he said that Congress, nevertheless, has denied to 

 the state, with respect to the feeding stuffs coming from, another 

 state and sold in the original packages, the power the state 

 otherioise ivoiild have to prevent imposition upon the puhlic hy 

 making a reasonable and non-discriminating provision for the 

 disclosure of ingredients, and for inspection and analysis? If 

 there he such denial it is not to he found in any express declara- 

 tion to that effect. Undoubtedly Congress, by virtue of its 

 paramount authority over interstate commerce, might have 

 said that such goods should be free from the incidental effect 

 of a state law enacted for these purposes. But it did not so 

 declare." 



In the case of Simpson vs. Sheperd, 230 U. S. 352, 51 L. Ed. 1511, 

 the Court said : 



"State inspection laws and statutes designed to safeguard 

 the inhabitants of a state from fraud and impo.sitiou are valid 

 when reasonable in their requirement, and not in conflict 

 with Federal rules, although they may affect interstate com- 

 merce in their relation to articles prepared for export, or by 

 including incidentally those brought into the state and held 

 for sale in the original imported packages.'' 



If the state can, as decided in Savage vs. Jones, require an ad- 

 ditional label disclosing ingredients and also stamps covering cost 

 of inspection to be attached to the original package, without uncon- 

 stitutional interference with interstate commerce, or with the opera- 

 tion of the National Food and Drugs Act, it certainly can enforce its 

 own laws when food in violation thereof is offered for sale by a citizen 

 of the state to other citizens of the state, even though the food was 

 imported from another state. 



It is therefore clear that the pure food statutes of the State of 

 Pennsylvania which do not interfere with the labeling provided by 

 the National Food and Drugs Act, or with the inspection of the 

 Federal authority under that act, do not even incidentally interfere 

 with interstate commerce. 



There is another consideration. The enforcement of the pure food 

 laws of the State practically begins where the Federal control ends. 



In the case of McDermott vs. Wi.scon.sin, it is said in the opinion, 

 page 136: 



**To make the provisions of the act effectual, Congress has 



