GOVERNMENTAL INSPECTION 169 



city lie could be punished in the police court, 

 should he refuse to do the reasonable things speci- 

 fied by ordinances. It therefore happens that we 

 may find in the ordinances relating to such occu- 

 pations as the milk business a distinction made 

 between dairies within and without the city. An 

 ordinance recognizing the difference between 

 dairies outside and inside the municipal jurisdic 

 tion, and requiring a difference in the manage- 

 ment of the two, is therefore reasonable.^ ^ But 

 ** Necessary restriction cannot sanction or cover 

 arbitrary discrimination. ' ' ^^ When a health de- 

 partment is convinced that the conditions under 

 which the milk is produced make it unsafe for 

 consumption it is the duty of the department to 

 stop the sale of the product within its limits.^^ 

 This does not mean that harm will necessarily 

 result from the use of such milk, but that harm 

 is likely to follow. In this Bellows case the court 

 said : " It is unreasonable to say that the depart- 

 ment of health, in exercising such power, renders 

 itself amenable to the charge of exercising extra- 

 territorial jurisdiction. In notifying the cream- 

 ery company not to include the plaintiff's milk in 

 its shipments to the city, it was acting for the 

 protection of the inhabitants of the city of New 

 York, and therefore for local interests. There was 

 no interference with the plaintiff's conduct of his 

 farm or business, except as he proposed to supply 

 milk to the city of New York; there was simply 

 an embargo laid on the introduction, within the 



13 Adams v. Milwaukee, 144 i* Freund, Police Power, 640. 



Wis. 371, 129 N. W. 518; also, is Bellows v. Eaynor, 207 N. 



228 U. S. 572. Y. 389, 101 N. E, 181. 



