It is immaterial that some value may re main in the food for other purposes if kept to be sold at some time as food ; No state statute which even affects inci dentally interstate commerce is valid if it is repugnant to the federal Food and Drugs Act; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 32 Sup. Ct. 715, 56 L. Ed. 1182.
The principal purpose of the United States Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, is to prohibit adulteration and misbranding. It applies to the introduction into any state or territory or the District of Columbia from any other state or territory or the District of Columbia, or from any foreign country, or shipment to any foreign country, of adul terated or misbranded drugs. It makes the act an offence. No article is included when packed for export to any foreign country ac cording to the specifications or directions of the foreign purchaser, when no substance is used in the preparation or packing thereof in conflict with the laws of the foreign coun try. Specimens are examined in the bureau of chemistry of the department of agricul ture; if found obnoxious to the act, notice is given to the party from whom the sample was obtained, who is given an opportunity to be heard; if it appears that the act has been, violated, the secretary of agriculture certifies the fact to the proper United States district attorney, who shall proceed in the federal court to enforce the penalties.
The term "drug," as used in the act, in cludes "all medicines and preparations rec ognized in the United States Pharmacopceia or National Formulary for internal or ex ternal use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation or prevention of disease of either man or other animals." The term "food" means "all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed or compound." What is adulteration is specified at great length in the act. No dealer shall be prose cuted when he can establish a guarantee signed by the wholesaler, jobber or manu facturer or other party residing in the Unit ed States, from whom he purchased the ar ticles, to the effect that the article is not adulterated or misbranded. Obnoxious arti cles, when transported or in unbroken pack ages, are liable to proceedings and confisca tion in the court of the district where found. The articles may be destroyed or may be sold and the proceeds, less costs, paid into the treasury of the United States. The pro
ceedings are by libel conformably as near as may be to those in admiralty, but either party may demand a jury trial.
The act went into effect January 1, 1907. It extends to food for man and all other animals; U. S. v. One Car Load, etc., 188 Fed. 453.
This act is not an exercise of the police power, but is a proper regulation of inter state commerce; Shawnee Milling Co. v. Temple, 179 Fed. 517 ; U. S. v. 420 Sacks of Flour, 180 Fed. 518. That is the only ground of federal control; U. S. v. J. L. Hopkins & Co., 199 Fed. 649.
This statute, making it a criminal offence to sell articles so misbranded, was held valid as to one who sold and delivered such goods within the state, since it enabled an innocent purchaser, relying on the false certificate, to sell the same in interstate commerce; U. S. v. Specialty Co., 175 Fed. 299.
The act is not vold for uncertainty be cause no standard of quality is prescribed, but the determination of the standard is left to the courts ; U. S. v. 420 Sacks of Flour, 180 Fed. 518.
There can be no seizure by a private per son and no seizure prior to the institution of proceedings ; U. S. v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302.
Such misbranded goods may be confiscated after they have reached their destination, while they are in the original unbroken pack ages; Hipolite Egg Co. v. U. S., 220 U. 5. 45, 31 sup. Ct. 364, 55 L. Ed. 364.
The preliminary examination by the de partment of agriculture of a food or drug product is not a necessary condition prece dent for the filing of a libel for the con demnation thereof ; U. S. v. 50 Barrels of Whisky, 165 Fed. 966 ; U. S. v. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274, 32 Sup. Ct. 81, 56 L. Ed. 198.
Proceedings are by libel in the district court, the practice conforming as nearly as may be to admiralty practice; the review is by writ of error ; Four Hundred and Forty Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. U. S., 226 U. S. 172, 33 Sup. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174.
As to the definition of original packages, the following have been held to be such un der other acts: Single bottles of beer and whiskey sealed in pasteboard or wdoden boxes ; In re Beine, 42 Fed. 546; Gucken heimer v. Sellers, 81 Fed. 997. These in stances are given as perhaps the minimum ; more elaborate packages might therefore be held within the definition. See ORIGINAL