INSPECTION LAWS. The right in the states to enact inspection laws, quarantine and health laws is undoubted and is recog nized in the constitution ; Story, Const. 515; Cooley, Const. Lim. 730. These may be car ried to the extent of ordering the destruction of private property, when infected with dis ease or otherwise dangerous ; id.; Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 5 How. (U. S.) 632, 12 L. Ed. 256.
The object of such laws is "to improve the quality- of articles produced by the labor of the country ; to fit them for exportation, or it may be for domestic use"; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 203, 6 L. Ed. 23; to protect the community from frauds and impositions, and, as to articles designed for exportation, to preserve our reputation in foreign markets ; Clintsman v. Northrop, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 46.
Whenever inspection laws act on the sub- ject before it becomes an article of com merce, they are confessedly valid; and also when, although operating on articles in in terstate commerce, they provide for inspec tion under the police power of a state in the interest of public health etc.; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 18 Sup. Ct. 862, 43 L. Ed. 191; so as to oleomargarine in spection; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 Sup. Ct. 154, 39 L. Ed. 223; so as to a statute regulating the sale of commer cial fertilizers for the protection of the pub ' lie; Steiner v. Ray, 84 Ala. 93, 4 South. 172, 5 Am. St. Rep. 332; Vanmeter v. Spurrier, 94 Ky. 22, 21 S. W. 337. A Virginia act for the inspection of flour was held invalid be cause it required the inspection of flour from other states when it was not required from the native product; Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62, 11 Sup. Ct. 855, 35 L. Ed. 638; a statute for the inspection of fertilizers was held not applicable where the sale and deliv ery were without the state; Martin v. Guano Co., 77 Ga. 257.
An inspection law (hides) affecting inter state commerce, is not, for that reason, in valid unless it is in conflict with an act of congress, or is an attempt to regulate inter state commerce ; New Mexico v. R. Co., 203 U.
S. 38, 27 Sup. Ct. 1, 51 L. Ed. 78. Congress has not enacted any legislation destroying the right of a state to provide for the inspec tion of cattle and prohibiting the bringing in of diseased cattle not inspected and pass ed as healthy either by state or national ficials ; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 28 Sup. Ct. 485, 52 L. Ed. 778, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101.
A state may declare that certain articles shall not be sold within its limits without inspection, and charge the cost of the in spection on those offering the article for sale ; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agri culture, 52 Fed. 690. The question of the constitutionality of an inspection law affect ing interstate commerce depends not only upon whether the excess proceeds of the tax may be used for other purposes, but whether they are actually so used ; Foote v. Mary land, 232 U. S. 494, 34 Sup. Ct. 377, 58 L. Ed. —. If it has a real relation to the protec tion of the people and is reasonable, it is not invalid because it may incidentally affect interstate commerce, provided it does not conflict with legislation enacted by congress pursuant to its constitutional authority ; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 32 Sup. Ct. 790, 56 L. Ed. 1182. Prima facie the charge is reasonable ; Red "C." Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board, 222 U. S. 380, 32 Sup. Ct. 152, 56 L. Ed. 240.
A state cannot, under the guise of exert ing its police powers, or of enacting inspec tion laws, make discrimination against the products and industries of some of the states in favor of the products and industries of its own or of other states ; Brimmer v. Reb man,. 138 U. S. 78, 11 Sup. Ct. 213, 34 L. Ed. 862 ; Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62, 11 Sup. Ct. 855, 35 L. Ed. 638.
See POLICE POWER ; COMMERCE ; LICENSE.