Rpice v. People of the State of Illinois
Decision Date | 21 June 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 274,274 |
Citation | 59 L.Ed. 1400,238 U.S. 446,35 S.Ct. 892 |
Parties | W. T. RPICE, Plff. in Err., v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Trafford N. Jayne for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Lester H. Strawn and Mr. Patrick J. Lucey, Attorney General of Illinois, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the supreme court of Illinois, which affirmed a judgment of the municipal court of Chicago, finding the plaintiff in error guilty of a violation of the 'pure food' statute of that state, and imposing a fine. 257 Ill. 587, 101 N. E. 196, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1154.
The violation consisted of a sale in Chicago of a preservative compound known as 'Mrs. Price's Canning Compound,' alleged to be intended as a 'preservative of food,' and to be 'unwholesome and injurious in that it contained boric acid.'
The statute (Laws of Illinois 1907, p. 543; Hurd's Rev. Stat. chap. 127b, §§ 8 and 22) provides:
'§ 8. Defines Adulteration. That for the purpose of this act an article shall be deemed to be adulterated: . . .
'In case of food 'Fifth—If it contains any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health: Provided, that when in the preparation of food products for shipment they are preserved by an external application, applied in such a manner that the preservative is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water, or otherwise, and directions for the removal of said preservatives shall be printed on the covering of the package, the provisions of this act shall be construed as applying only when such products are ready for consumption; and formaldehyde, hydrofluoric acid, boric acid, salicylic acid and all compounds and derivatives thereof are hereby declared unwholesome and injurious. . . .
A trial by jury was waived. There was a stipulation of facts setting forth, in substance, that the defendant had sold in Chicago two packages of the preservative in question; that the compound contained 'boric acid;' that the label on the packages bore the following statement: 'It is not claimed for this compound that it contains anything of food value, but it is an antiseptic preparation, and among its many uses may be employed to prevent canned fruits and vegetables from souring and spoiling;' that the preservative was not offered for sale or sold in any food product, but only separately as a preservative; and that the defendant was accorded a hearing before the State Food Commission pursuant to the provisions of the food law.
There was also introduced in evidence on behalf of the state an envelop, used for inclosing the compound, upon which were statements as to its uses, prices, etc. It was thus stated that the preservative could be used 'in canning all kinds of fruit,' and was 'especially valuable for corn, beans, peas,' etc. There was also the statement on the envelop that the contents 'of this package' were sufficient for 'four quarts,' and that the retail prices were from 10 cents for one 'package' to $1 for fifteen 'packages.' That was the case for the state.
A motion to dismiss was denied. The plaintiff then made an offer of proof, and thereupon it was stipulated that a witness in court, if sworn, would testify that the 'Price Canning Compound is an article of commerce, which has been sold under that distinct name for a period of years, with the ingredients and in the proportions contained in the sample taken by the Food Department, which is the subject of this suit; that it has acquired a wide reputation over a large number of states in the Union as a distinctive article, used for canning by the housewife;' that 'it is not sold to manufacturers of food or canners of food for sale;' and that 'boric acid is a constituent part of the compound and has been such during all the time that the compound has been sold.'
Objection to evidence offered that 'there is no added ingredient of any kind whatever, whether it be injurious, deleterious, or otherwise,' was sustained as not being addressed to the charge made. The defendant (the plaintiff in error) also offered to prove 'that boric acid is not injurious to health or to the human system,' and that the 'Price Canning Compound is not adulterated or mislabeled in any way.' The offer was rejected, and the defendant excepted. In response to a further offer, it was conceded that the witness, if placed upon the stand, would testify that the compound 'is an article of commerce, sold in Illinois in the original package manufactured in Minnesota.'
Upon this state of the record, the contention of the plaintiff in error that the statute was inapplicable, or, if applicable, was repugnant to the Constitution of the state, and to the commerce clause and the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, was overruled.
The supreme court of the state thus construed the statute:
'We will first notice the objection of plaintiff in error that § 8 deals only with foods; that the declaration in that section that boric acid is injurious and unwholesome is limited to foods containing that substance as an added ingredient, and has no application to a preservative which is not, and does not purport to be, a food.
The plaintiff in error challenges the correctness of this construction, but this question is simply one of local law with which we are not concerned. We accept the decision of the supreme court of the state as to the meaning of the statute, and, in the light of this construction, the validity of the act under the Federal Constitution must be determined. Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 414, 41 L. ed. 489, 494, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, 466, 45 L. ed. 619, 925, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 73, 55 L. ed. 369, 375, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Purity Extract Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 198, 57 L. ed. 184, 186, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44.
The first Federal question is presented by the contention that the statute, as applied, effects a deprivation of property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the 14th Amendment.
The state has undoubted power to protect the health of its people and to impose restrictions having reasonable relation to that end. The nature and extent of restrictions of this character are matters for the legislative judgment in defining the policy of the state and the safeguards required. In the avowed exercise of this power, the legislature of Illinois has enacted a prohibition as the statute is construed—against the sale of food preservatives containing boric acid. And unless this prohibition is palpably unreasonable and arbitrary we are not at liberty to say that it passes beyond the limits of the state's protective authority. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 686, 32 L. ed....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cobb v. Department of Public Works
... ... COBB et al ... DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF STATE OF WASHINGTON et al ... No. 481 ... District Court, W. D ... See Commonwealth v. People's Express Co., 201 Mass. 564, 578, 88 N. E. 420, 131 Am. St. Rep. 416, for ... Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 34 S. Ct. 829, 58 L. Ed. 1312; Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 35 S. Ct. 892, 59 L. Ed. 1400. That principle has been ... ...
-
Ravitz v. Steurele
... ... in the act, shall engage in this state in making loans in the ... amount of value of $300 or less at a greater ... See People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87; ... Commonwealth v. Puder, 261 ... S.Ct. 612, 58 L.Ed. 1011, L. R. A. 1915C, 1189; Price v ... Illinois, 238 U.S. 446, 452, 35 S.Ct. 892, 59 L.Ed ... The ... ...
-
Davis v. Beeler
... ... validity of statute dealing with practice of naturopathy in the state. To review adverse decree, the complainants bring error ... has prescribed as necessary to the general safety of the people is within the police power of the state. This general purpose may be ... 679 [687], L.R.A.1917A, 421, Ann. Cas.1917B, 455; Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446, 452, 35 S.Ct. 892, 59 L.Ed. 1400 [1405]." ... ...
-
Porter v. City of Lewiston
... ... 1. The ... police power of the state extends to everything essential to ... the public safety in the ... 151, ... 102 Am. St. 983, 97 N.W. 942, 66 L. R. A. 907; People v ... Board, 140 N.Y. 1, 37 Am. St. 522, 35 N.E. 320, 23 L. R ... A ... S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679, L. R. A. 1917A, 421; Price v ... Illinois, 238 U.S. 446, 35 S.Ct. 892, 59 L.Ed. 1400; ... Pacific Coast Steamship ... ...
-
The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
...note 18; also 94U. S. 155, 164, 179, 180, 181.28 Mentz v. Baldwin, 289 U. S. 346.29 Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189;Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446; Bourjois Inc.v. Chapman, 301 U. S. 183.30 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461;Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S.497.31 Cf. Aus......