UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1932
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co.

No. 19

Argued October 19, 1932

Decided November 7, 1932

287 U.S. 77

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Syllabus

1. Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act punishes shipment in interstate or foreign commerce of any article of food which is misbranded, and § 8 declares that such an article in package form shall be deemed to be misbranded if the quantity of the contents be not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package,

Page 287 U. S. 78

in term of weight, measure, or numerical count; with the provision

"[t]hat reasonable variations shall be permitted, and tolerances and also exemptions as to small packages shall be established by rules and regulations made in accordance with section three."

Section three provides that executive officers designated shall make uniform regulations for carrying out the Act. Held that the executive regulations are to fix the variations allowable, as well as tolerances and exemptions, hence the statute is not open to the constitutional objection of uncertainty in defining the offense. P. 82.

2. A statute should be construed where possible so as to avoid doubt of its validity. Id.

3. In construing a statute, a court will disregard punctuation, or will repunctuate, to show the natural meaning of the word. P. 82.

4. Reports of congressional committees explaining the bill may be considered in determining the meaning of a doubtful statute, but will not be used to support a construction contrary to the plain import of its terms. P. 83.

5. Practical and long-continued construction of a statute by executive departments charged with its administration and with the duty of making rules and regulations to carry it out is to be accepted where the statute is doubtful, unless there are cogent and persuasive reasons for rejecting it. P. 84.

6. The provision of the Food and Drugs Act, supra, for defining by executive regulations the reasonable variations that are permissible from the quantities marked on packages is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. P. 85.

46 F.2d 354 reversed.

Appeal from a judgment quashing an indictment.

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant (appellee) was charged by indictment, returned in the court below, with misbranding certain sacks, containing corn meal, an article of food, by labeling each of the sacks as containing a greater quantity by weight than in fact was contained therein, contrary to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, U.S.Code title 21, § 2, which make it unlawful to ship in interstate or foreign commerce any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of the act. The penalty prescribed is a fine of 0 for the first offense, and for each subsequent offense, not exceeding 0, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. Section 8, as amended by the Act

Page 287 U. S. 81

of March 3, 1913, c. 117, 37 Stat. 732, provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

"Third. If in package form, the quantity of the contents be not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided, however, That reasonable variations shall be permitted, and tolerances and also exemptions as to small packages shall be established by rules and regulations made in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this Act."

A motion to quash the indictment was interposed by the defendant upon the grounds that the act of Congress relied on is unconstitutional, because (1) the offense is not defined with certainty, and therefore the act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the requirement of the Sixth Amendment that the accused shall enjoy the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;" and (2) it is in conflict with Articles I, II, and III of the federal Constitution, which separate the government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The court below sustained the motion and dismissed the proceedings. The case comes here by appeal under the provisions of § 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, U.S.C., Title 28, § 345; U.S.C., Title 18, § 682.

First. The contention seems to be that the proviso makes it necessary to read § 8 as substantively prohibiting unreasonable variations in the weight, measure, or numerical count of the quantity and contents of any package from that marked on the outside of the package, and that the test thereby indicated is so indefinite and uncertain that it fails to fix any ascertainable standard of guilt, or afford a valid definition of a crime. In support of the contention, United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S.

Page 287 U. S. 82

81, United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U. S. 385, and other decisions of this Court are relied upon.

We are of opinion that the construction thus sought to be put upon the act cannot be sustained, and therefore, other considerations aside, the cases cited do not apply. The substantive requirement is that the quantity of the contents shall be plainly and conspicuously marked in terms of weight, etc. We construe the proviso simply as giving administrative authority to the Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor to make rules and regulations permitting reasonable variations from the hard and fast rule of the act and establishing tolerances and exemptions as to small packages, in accordance with § 3 thereof. * This construction avoids the doubt which otherwise might arise as to the constitutional point, and therefore is to be adopted if reasonably possible. United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 220; United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 574. We find nothing in the terms of the act to require a division of the proviso so that the power of regulation will apply to the establishment of tolerances and exemptions, but not to reasonable variations. We think both are included. As to this, there would be no room for doubt if it were not for the presence of a comma after the word "permitted," or the absence of one after the word "established." Inserting the latter, the proviso would read, "That reasonable variations shall be permitted, and tolerances and also exemptions as to small packages shall be established, by rules and regulations. . . ." Punctuation marks are no part of an act. To determine the intent of the law, the court, in construing a statute, will disregard the punctuation,

Page 287 U. S. 83

or will repunctuate, if that be necessary, in order to arrive at the natural meaning of the words employed. Hammock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77, 84-85; United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 628; United States v. Oregon & California R. Co., 164 U. S. 526, 541; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 480; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Voelker, 129 F. 522, 526-527.

Our attention is called to the fact that the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, in reporting the bill which afterwards became the act in question (H.R. 850, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2-4), agreed with the view that the authority to make rules and regulations was confined to the establishment of tolerances and exemptions, and that the Senate Committee on Manufactures (S.R. 1216, 62d Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 2-4) reported to the same effect. In proper cases, such reports are given consideration in determining the meaning of a statute, but only where that meaning is doubtful. They cannot be resorted to for the purpose of construing a statute contrary to the natural import of its terms. Wisconsin R. Comm'n v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 257 U. S. 563,...