88 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



provided not only for the seizure of the goods while being 

 actually transported in interstate commerce, but has also pro- 

 vided for such seizure after such transportation and while 

 the goods remain 'unloaded, unsold or in original and unbroken 

 packages.' The opportunity of inspection enroute may be very 

 inadequate. The real opportunity of government inspection 

 may only arise lohen, as in the present case, the goods as packed 

 have 'been removed from, the outside hox in which they were 

 shipped, and remain, as the act provides, 'unsold. It is enough, 

 by the terms of the act, if the articles are unsold, whether 

 in original packages or not." 



The Pennsylvania statutes usually contain the language making it 

 illegal to "sell, offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession 

 with intent to sell," any adulterated or misbranded article of food. 



The Federal statute follows the goods from another State into 

 Pennsylvania and on to the shelves of the retail merchant. When 

 the goods get upon the shelves of the retail merchant the State in- 

 spection begins. There is no conflict of authority. The enforcement 

 of Pennsylvania laws against goods on shelves of a retail merchant, 

 is not even an incidental control of interstate commerce, nor is it 

 any interference with Federal inspection. 



I am aware that this opinion does not appear to be in harmony 

 with the case of Corn Products Refining Company vs. Weigle, 221 

 Federal Reporter, 998, and the decree entered in that case which is 

 before me, but not reported, certainly is not in harmony with this 

 opinion, but there is no case in the United States Supreme Court 

 which has gone to the length of the case just quoted, and, as I under- 

 stand the decisions of that Court, the case of Corn Products Refining 

 Company vs. Weigle has gone farther than any other case in that it 

 completely ousts state inspection of goods that were once in interstate 

 commerce, if such goods happen to be labeled in conformity with the 

 National Food and Drugs Act, and prevents the operation of any state 

 statute upon such goods, even as between a retail resident dealer and 

 the resident consumer of the state. I cannot agree that the passage 

 of the National Food and Drugs Act has such sweeping effect in de- 

 stroying the police power of the state. 



Therefore, specifically answering your inquiry, T am of opinion 

 that after purchase and analysis of a bottle of catsup from the shelves 

 of a store of a retail merchant in Pennsylvania, such catsup is found 

 to violate the pure food laws of this State, such laws may be enforced 

 even though the catsup has been shipped from another state and is 

 sealed and labeled in conformity with the National Food and Drugs 

 Act of June 30, 1906. 



I return herewith the correspondence submitted with your request. 



Very truly yours. 



WM. M. HARGEST, 



Deputy Attorney General. 



