GOVERNMENTAL INSPECTION 169 
city he 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.’?!4 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 14 Freund, Police Power, 640. 
Wis. 371, 129 N. W. 518; also, 15 Bellows v. Raynor, 207 N. 
228 U. 8. 572. Y. 389, 101 N. E. 181. 
