People v. Carolene Products Co.

• Citation: 345 Ill. 166,177 N.E. 698
• Decision Date: 09 October 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20787.,20787.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

345 Ill. 166

177 N.E. 698

PEOPLE

v.CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.

No. 20787.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 18, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1931.

Action by the People for the recovery of a penalty against the Carolene Products Company. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Thomas M. Jett, judge.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., and Lester K. Vandever, State's Atty., of Hillsboro, for the People.

George N. Murdock, of Chicago, and Paul McWilliams, of Litchfield, for appellee.

ORR, J.

An action in debt was brought by appellant in the circuit court of Montgomery county for the recovery of a penalty, charging appellee with the violation of what is commonly known as the Filled Milk Law. This law was passed by the General Assembly and approved June 21, 1923 (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, c. 56 1/2, § 19a), and the section in question is as follows: ‘§ 19 1/2. No person shall manufacture, sell or exchange, or have in possession with intent to sell or exchange, any milk, cream, skim milk, buttermilk, condensed or evaporated milk, powdered milk, condensed skim milk, or any of the fluid derivatives of any of them to which has been added any fat or oil other than milk fat, either under the name of said products or articles or the derivatives thereof or under any fictitious or trade name whatsoever.’

To the declaration charging a violation of this statute a plea of the general issue was filed, and the cause was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts. The trial court held the statute unconstitutional, in that it deprived appellee of its property without due process of law, was a denial of its right of equal protection under the law, was special legislation, and therefore beyond the power of the Legislature to pass, and the present appeal followed.

The agreed statement of facts shows that a product called ‘carolene’ was manufactured and possessed by appellee at Litchfield, Ill. Carolene was composed of evaporated skimmed milk to which was added cocoanut oil; the latter being a fat other than milk fat. The mixture contained not less than 26 per cent. solids, and neither the evaporated skimmed milk nor the cocoanut oil, nor the combination,was harmful or deleterious to the health in any way. It was also stipulated that carolene was manufactured in a sanitary manner and its possession was in no way dangerous to the public; that it had the general appearance of ordinary evaporated milk, was packed in one-pound airtight tin cans bearing the following statements, among others: ‘Carolene-Will keep sweet longer that either fresh or evaporated canned milk. * * * A compound of refined nut oils and evaporated skimmed milk. * * * Not to be sold for evaporated milk. A high-grade, wholesome food product. * * * Especially prepared for use in coffee, baking, and for other culinary purposes.’ It was further stipulated that the use of cocoanut oil in oleomargarine is not prohibited by the laws of this state and that carolene was not intended to be sold by appellee to customers in Illinois.

The sole question involved is whether the Legislature exceeded its constitutional powers in enacting the law above quoted prohibiting the use of cocoanut oil in combination with skimmed milk; it being agreed that cocoanut oil in itself is a wholesome and nutritious substance, the use of which is not prohibited in the manufacture of oleomargarine. It is contended by the state that this law is a valid exercise of the police power and a lawful exercise of the right of the state to regulate the manufacture and sale of food and food products.

The Legislature has no authority to pronounce the performance of an innocent act criminal when the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare is not interfered with, Gillespie v. People, 188 Ill. 176, 58 N. E. 1007,52 L. R. A. 283, 80 Am. St. Rep. 176, and may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (D. C.) 42 F.(2d) 913. No question of imitation or fraud is involved in this case, and the wholesomeness of carolene is admitted. In People v. Price, 257 Ill. 587, 101 N. E. 196, 198, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1154, this court said: ‘It may be conceded the Legislature has no authority to forbid the sale of a known wholesome article of food.’

Appellant relies upon the case of Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 992, 1257,32 L. Ed. 253, but the stipulated facts clearly distinguish that case from the case at bar. In the Powell Case it was assumed that most kinds of oleomargarine in the market were, or might become, injurious to health, but in the present case it is stipulated that neither cocoanut oil, nor its combination with skimmed milk, is injurious to health. The Powell Case was later distinguished by the United States Supreme Court in Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U. S. 402, 46 S. Ct. 320, 322, 70 L. Ed. 654, which involved the validity of a statute prohibiting the use of shoddy in the manufacture of bedding. The court there said: ‘Shoddy-filled comfortables made by appellee are useful articles for which there is much demand; and it is a matter of public concern that the production and sale of things necessary or convenient for use should not be forbidden. They are to be distinguished from things that the state is deemed to have power to suppress as inherently dangerous.’

This court has be many decisions upheld the right of the citizen to engage in any...