State v. Reininger, 7005

• Decision Date: 19 December 1931
• Docket Number: 7005
• Citation: 59 S.D. 336,239 N.W. 849
• Parties: STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Respondent, v. U. G. REININGER, Appellant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

59 S.D. 336

239 N.W. 849

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Respondent,

v.

U. G. REININGER, Appellant. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Municipal Court, Sioux Falls, SD Hon. Ransom L. Gibbs, Judge #7005—Affirmed F.E. Ward, Sioux Falls, SD Attorney for Appellant. M.Q. Sharpe, Attorney General Benj. D. Mintener, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, SD Attorneys for the State. Opinion Filed Dec 19, 1931

POLLEY, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the violation of the provisions of section 7892-7903, inclusive, of the 1919 Revised Code, re-enacted and now embodied in chapter 238, Laws 1929. This chapter provides for the registration, inspection, and sale of live stock foods and remedies known as “concentrated commercial feeding stuff,” “mineral deficiency feed,” and “live stock remedy.” The law requires that, before any person may sell or offer any of said foods or remedies for sale, he shall file with the secretary of agriculture a label or statement showing the various ingredients contained in such food or remedy, and, upon request by the said secretary, shall furnish to him a specified sample of such food or remedy, accompanied by the affidavit of the person furnishing such sample to the effect that such sample is a true sample of the product it is claimed to represent, and also shall pay to the secretary of agriculture, on or before the 15th day of July in each year, a fixed fee for each of such various kinds of foods or remedies.

Section 13 of the act (chapter 238, Laws 1929) reads as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Agriculture to see that the provisions of this act are complied with and enforced, and he shall make or cause to be made such inspection and investigation as shall be reasonably necessary in the premises. He shall cause to be collected and subjected to analysis each year at least one sample of each brand of commercial feeding stuffs, mineral deficiency feed and live stock remedy sold or offered for sale in this state, and shall publish the results of such analyses in reports or bulletins from time to time together with such additional information as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem advisable.”

It is the contention of appellant that the “so-called inspection fee is not an inspection fee, for there is no analysis or inspection of the ingredients before the certificate is issued, but that it is a license fee imposed upon the defendant’s right to do business in South Dakota, and cannot be sustained unless it clearly comes within the police powers of the state.” Appellant’s entire defense is based upon this proposition. It is true that the law contemplates that sales may be made, but such sales cannot be made until the person about to offer such products for sale has furnished the secretary of agriculture a statement of the ingredients contained in the product about to be sold, together with a sample of such product and an affidavit of such person that the sample so furnished is a true sample of the product it is claimed to represent. Under the provisions of section 13, the secretary of agriculture is required to make an analysis of at least one sample of each brand of the various products provided for by said law each year. And under the provisions of section 9 he has the power to cancel any certificate that may have been issued if he finds that the provisions of the law have been or are being violated.

The powers and duties of the secretary of agriculture over the subject of chapter 238, Laws 1929, are very comprehensive, and we believe the law is an inspection law in the fullest sense. It is not shown that the fee to be paid to the secretary of agriculture is out of proportion to the value of the service he is required to render. And the fact that the small dealer must pay the same fee as the large dealer is not material. The service to be rendered in the one case may be the same as in the other.

While not a copy of the Indiana law, chapter 238, Laws 1929, is patterned after chapter 206, Indiana Acts 1907. In Savage v. Jones, 32 SCt 715, 722, 56 LEd 1182, that court, in commenting upon the Indiana law, in a case similar to this, say: “The evident purpose of the statute is to prevent fraud and imposition in the sale of food for domestic animals, –a matter of great importance to the people of the state. Its requirements were directed to that end, and they were not unreasonable. It was not...