-X^C^-^X^Bf^. 
 
 y.SdNRLF 
 
 *B Eflfl s^cf 
 
AOKI 
 
 ■to. Lib. 
 
 DOCUMENTS 
 
 DEPT. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/foodlawsOOmichrich 
 
I 
 
^N^ Befke'sy. Ca(, 
 
 THE 
 
 DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 STATE OF MICHIGAN 
 
 WITH 
 
 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 
 
 RELATING THERETO 
 
 APRIL 1, 1905 
 
 COMPILED AT THE OFFICE OF THE 
 
 DAIRY AND FOOD DEPARTMENT- 
 
 LANSING, MICHIGAN 
 WYNKOOP HALLENBECK CRAWFORD CO.. STATE PRINTERS 
 
 1905 
 
.9 
 
 DOCUMENTS 
 DEPT. 
 
 ■bill lib. 
 
 Dept 
 
 /■\or/c, 0(s^ 
 
 - . . . * 
 
 • * • ? 'i J 
 
 
^4 
 
 LAWS OF MICHIGAN 
 
 RELATIVE TO INSPECTION AND ADULTERATION OF FOODS 
 
 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSIONER 
 
 AN ACT to provide for the appointment of a Dairy and Food Com- 
 missioner, and to define his powers and duties and fix his compen- 
 sation. 
 
 (Act No. 211, Public Acts, 1893.) 
 
 1. (C. L., 4973) Section 1. The People of the State 
 of Michigan enact, That within thirty days after this act 
 shall take effect, the Governor, by and with the consent of 
 the Senate, shall appoint a suitable person to be Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner, which office is hereby created^ 
 and which commissioner so appointed shall hold his office- 
 until the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred 
 and ninety-five, and until his successor is appointed and 
 qualified. At the next regular session of the legislature 
 and every two years thereafter, the Governor, by and with 
 the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner, who shall hold his office for the 
 term of two years from the first day of January in the year 
 of his appointment and until his successor is appointed 
 and qualified. 
 
 2. (C. L., 4974) Sec. 2. The Governor shall have 
 power to remove such commissioner at any time in his 
 discretion; but the reasons for such removal shall be laid 
 before the Senate at the next regular or special session of 
 the legislature thereafter, and in case of a vacancy in the 
 
 385899 
 
^_, STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 office of commissioner from any cause, the Governor may. 
 appoint another person to fill the same. 
 
 3. (C. L., 4975) Sec. 3. Before entering upon the 
 duties of his office, the person so appointed shall make, 
 subscribe, and file in the office of the Secretary of State, 
 an oath of office in the form prescribed by section one of 
 article eighteen of the constitution of this State, and shall 
 enter into bonds with the people of the State of Michigan 
 in the sum of ten thousand dollars, with sureties to be ap- 
 proved by the Governor, conditioned for the faithful per- 
 formance of his duties. 
 
 4. (C. L., 4976) Sec. 4. Said commissioner shall re- 
 ceive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The said 
 commissioner is hereby authorized and empowered, by 
 and with the advice and consent of the Governor, to ap- 
 point a deputy commissioner. The salary of the dep\ity 
 commissioner shall be fifteen hundred dollars per annum. 
 The said commissioner may also appoint eight regular 
 inspectors, who shall receive an annual salary not to ex- 
 ceed one thousand dollars per year, and such other special 
 inspectors as the proper performance of the duties of the 
 office may require, which special inspectors shall be paid 
 not to exceed three dollars per day for time actually em- 
 ployed: Provided, That- the amount paid such special 
 inspectors any one fiscal year shall not exceed six thou- 
 sand dollars. The persons so appointed shall have po\yer 
 to administer oaths in all matters relative to the dairy 
 and food laws and shall take and subscribe the constitu- 
 tional oath of office and file the same in the office of the 
 Secretary of State; and they shall hold office during the 
 pleasure of the commissioner. The inspectors shall have 
 the same right of access to the places to be inspected as 
 the said commissioner or his deputy. The commissioner 
 shall appoint such clerks as he may deem necessary for 
 the transaction of the business of his office. The salaries 
 and expenses authorized by this section shall be for the 
 unexpired part of the fiscal year ending June thirty, nine- 
 teen hundred five, and each fiscal year thereafter. Said sal- 
 aries are to be paid monthly on the warrant of the Auditor 
 General. The actual and necessary expenses of the com- 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 
 
 missioner, deputy and inspectors, in the performance of 
 their •official duties, shall be audited by the State Board 
 of Auditors and paid upon the warrant of the Auditor 
 General. Such compensation and expenses shall be cer- 
 tified, audited and paid in the same manner as salaries and 
 expenses paid similar officers. The deputy commission- 
 er and inspectors shall enter into bonds with the people 
 of the State of Michigan in the sum of five thousand dol- 
 lars each, with sureties to be approved by the commis- 
 sioner, conditioned for the faithful performance of their 
 respective duties. The Board of State Auditors shall pro- 
 vide office room, and the necessary furniture and fix- 
 tures and the necessary stationery, supplies and printing 
 for the conducting of the business of said commissioner, 
 on his application to said board therefor. Said office shall 
 be and remain in the city of Lansing. ^ 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 245, P. A. 1895. Am. by Act No. 154, P. A. 1897. 
 Am. by Act No. 186, P. A. 1901. Am. by Act No. 230, P. A. 1903. 
 Am. by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 5. (C. L., 4977) Sec. 5. The commissioner, by and 
 with the consent of the Governor, shall appoint a suitable 
 and competent person as State analyst, who shall be a 
 practical analytical chemist. The commissioner, in like 
 manner, may appoint an assistant chemist. Before en- 
 tering upon the duties of their offices, the analyst and 
 assistant chemist shall take, subscribe and file in the office 
 of the Secretary of State the constitutional oath of office. 
 Their term of office shall continue during the pleasure of 
 the commissioner. The Board of State Auditors shall 
 provide a room in connection with the Dairy^ and Food 
 Commissioner for the laboratory of the State analyst and 
 his assistant, and the necessary furniture and fixtures there- 
 for. In case of the absence or inability of the State an- 
 alyst or his assistant to perform his duty, the commission- 
 er may appoint some competent person to perform the 
 same temporarily, which person shall take, subscribe and 
 file the constitutional oath of office. The salaries and 
 expenses authorized by this section shall be for the un- 
 expired part of the fiscal year ending June thirty, nine- 
 
STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 teen hundred five, and each fiscal year thereafter, said 
 salaries to be payable monthly on the warrant of the Aud- 
 itor General. The salary of the chemist shall be not to 
 exceed two thousand dollars; the salary of the assistant 
 chemist shall be not to exceed twelve hundred dollars. 
 The actual and necessary expenses of the chemist and the 
 assistant chemist, in the performance of their official du- 
 ties, shall be audited by the Board of State Auditors, and 
 paid upon the warrant of the Auditor General. Such an 
 amount as is found to be necessary in the proper perform- 
 ance of the work of the analyst may be expended for chem- 
 ical supplies. Such compensations, expenses and supplies 
 shall be certified, audited and paid in the same manner 
 as the salaries, expenses and supplies of similar officers. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 245. P. A. 1895. Am. bv Act No. 154, P. A. 1897. 
 ^m. by Act No. 186, P. A. 1901. Am. bv Act No. 230, P. A. 1903. 
 Am. by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 6. (C. L., 4978) Sec. 6. It shall be the duty of the 
 Dairy and Food Commissioner to carefully inquire into 
 the dairy and food and drink products and the several 
 articles which are foods or drinks, or the necessary con- 
 stituents of foods or drinks, which are manufactured or 
 sold or exposed or offered for sale in this State, and he may, 
 in a lawful manner, procure samples of the same and direct 
 the State analyst to make due and careful examination 
 of the same, and report to the commissioner the result 
 of the analysis of all and any of such food and drink pro- 
 ducts or dairy products as are adulterated, impure or un- 
 wholesome in contravention of the laws of this State; and 
 it shall be the duty of the commissioner to make a com- 
 plaint against the manufacturer or vendor thereof in the 
 proper county and furnish all evidence thereof, to obtain 
 a conviction of the offense charged. The Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner, or his deputy, or any person appointed 
 by him for that purpose may make complaint and cause 
 proceedings to be commenced against any person for the 
 enforcement of any of the laws relative to adulterated, 
 impure or unwholesome food or drink, and in such case 
 he shall not be obliged to furnish security for costs and 
 shall have power, in the performance of his duties, to enter 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 
 
 into any creamery, factory, store, salesroom, drug store, 
 or laboratory, or place where he has reason to believe food, 
 or drink is made, stored, sold or offered for sale and open 
 any cask, tub, jar, bottle or package containing, or sup- 
 posed to contain, any article of food or drink and examine 
 or cause to be examined the contents thereof, and take 
 therefrom samples for analysis. The person making such 
 inspection shall take such sample of such article or product 
 in the presence of at least one witness, and he shall, in the 
 presence of said witness, mark or seal such sample and 
 shall tender at the time of taking to the manufacturer or 
 vendor of such product, or to the person having the cus- 
 tody of the same, the value thereof, and a statement in 
 writing for the taking of such sample. Whenever it is 
 •determined by the Dairy and Food Commissioner, his 
 deputy or inspectors, that filthy or unsanitary conditions 
 exist or are permitted to exist in the operation of any bak- 
 ■ery, confectionary, or ice cream plant, or in any place where 
 any food or drink products are manufactured, stored, de- 
 posited or sold for any purpose whatever, the proprietor 
 •or proprietors, owner or owners, of such bakery, confec- 
 tionary or ice cream plant, or any person or persons own- 
 ing or operating any plant where any food or drink pro- 
 ducts are manufactured, stored, deposited or sold, shall 
 be first notified and warned by the commissioner, his deputy 
 or inspectors to place such bakery, confectionary or ice 
 <;ream plant, or any place where any food or drink products 
 are manufactured, stored, deposited or sold in a sanitary 
 <}ondition within a reasonable length of time; and any per- 
 son or persons owning and operating any bakery, confec- 
 tionary or ice cream plant or any place where any food 
 or drink products are manufactured, stored, deposited or 
 sold, failing to obey such notice and warning, shall be guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be 
 punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars 
 nor more than three hundred dollars and costs of prosecu- 
 tion, or imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 
 ninety days, or until such fine and costs are paid, or both 
 fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 245, P. A. 1895. Am. by Act No. 154, P. A. 1897. 
 Am. by Act No. 268, P. A. 1899. Am. by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
STATE OF MICHIGAN 
 
 7. (C. L., 4979) Sec. 7. The commissioner, his deputy 
 or any person by said commissioner duly appointed for 
 that purpose, is authorized at all times to seize and take 
 possession of any and all food and dairy products, sub- 
 stitutes therefor, or imitation thereof kept for sale, exposed 
 for sale or held in possession or under the control of any 
 person which in the opinion of the said commissioner, or 
 his deputy or such person by him duly appointed, shall 
 be contrary to the provisions of this act or other laws which 
 now exist or which may be hereafter enacted. 
 
 First, The person so making such seizure as aforesaid^ 
 shall take from such goods as seized a sample for the pur- 
 pose of analysis and shall cause the remainder thereof to 
 be boxed and sealed and shall leave the «ame in the pos- 
 session of the person from whom they were seized, sub- 
 ject to such disposition as shall hereafter be made thereof 
 according to the provisions of this act. 
 
 Second, The person so making such seizure, shall for- 
 ward the sample sb taken to the State Analyst for analysis, 
 who shall make an analysis of the same and shall certify 
 the results of such analysis, which certificate shall be prima 
 facie evidence of the fact or facts therein certified to in 
 any court where the same may be offered in evidence. 
 
 Third, If upon such analysis it shall appear that said 
 food or dairy products are adulterated, substitutes or im- 
 itations within the meaning of this act, said commissioner, 
 or his deputy or any person by him duly authorized may 
 make complaint before any justice of the peace or police 
 justice having jurisdiction in the city, village or township 
 where such goods were seized, and thereupon said justice 
 of the peace shall issue his summons to the person from 
 whom said goods were seized, directing him to appear not 
 less than six nor more than twelve days from the date of 
 the issuing of said summons and show cause why said goods 
 should not be condemned and disposed of. If the said 
 person from whom said goods were seized cannot be found 
 said summons shall be served upon the person then in 
 possession of the goods. The said summons shall be 
 served at least six days before the time of appearance men- 
 tioned therein. If the person from whom said goods 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 
 
 were seized cannot be found, and no one can be found in 
 possession of said goods, and the defendants shall not ap- 
 pear on the return day, then said justice of the peace shall 
 proceed in said cause in the same manner provided by law 
 where a writ of attachment is returned not personally 
 served upon any of the defendants and none of the de- 
 fendants shall appear upon the return day. 
 
 Fourth, Unless cause to the contrary thereof is shown, or 
 if said goods shall be found upon trial to be in violation of 
 any of the provisions of this act or other laws which now 
 exist or which may be hereafter enacted, it shall be the 
 duty of said justice of the peace or police justice to render 
 judgment that said seized property be forfeited to the 
 State of Michigan, and that the said goods be destroyed 
 or sold by the said commissioner for any purpose other 
 than to be used for food. The mode of procedure before 
 said justice shall be the same, as near as may be as in civil 
 proceedings before justices of the peace. Either parties 
 may appeal to the circuit court as appeals are taken from 
 justices' courts, but it shall not be necessary for the people 
 to give any appeal bond. 
 
 Fifth, The proceeds arising from any such sale shall be 
 paid into the State treasury and credited to the general 
 fund: Provided, That if the owner or parjty claiming the 
 property or goods so declared forfeited can produce and 
 prove a written guaranty of purity, signed by the whole- 
 saler, jobber, manufacturer or other party from whom 
 said articles were purchased, then the proceeds of the sale 
 of such articles, over and above the costs of seizure, for- 
 feiture, and sale, shall be paid over to such owner or claim- 
 ant to reimburse him, to the extent of such surplus, for 
 his actual loss resulting from such seizure and forfeiture,, 
 as shown by the invoice. 
 
 Sixth, It shall be the duty of each prosecuting attorney 
 when called upon by said commissioners or by any person 
 by him authorized as aforesaid, to render any legal assist- 
 ance in his power in proceedings under the provisions of 
 this act, or any subsequent act relative to the adulteration 
 of food, for the sale of impure or unwholesome food or 
 food products. 
 
 [Am. by Act No.' 245, P.'A. 1895. Am.' by Act.No. 268, P. A. 1899. 
 Am. by Act No. 230, P. A. 1903.] 
 2 
 
10 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 8. (C. L., 4980) Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful for the 
 State Analyst, while he holds his office to furnish to any 
 individual, firm or corporation, any certificate as to the 
 purity or excellence of any article manufactured or scld 
 by them to be used as food or in the preparation of food. 
 
 9. (C. L., 4981) Sec. 9. The commissioner shall make 
 an annual report to the Governor on or before the first 
 •day of July in each year, and which shall be printed and 
 published on or before the first day of September next 
 thereafter, which report shall cover the doings of his office 
 for the preceding fiscal year, which shall show, among 
 other things, the number of manufactories and other places 
 inspected and by whom, the number of specimens of food 
 articles analyzed, and the State Analyst's report upon each 
 one; the number of complaints entered against persons 
 for violation of the laws relative to the adulteration of 
 food, the number of convictions had, and the amount of 
 fines imposed therefor, together with such recommenda- 
 tions relative to the statutes in force as his experience may 
 justify. The commissioner shall also prepare, print and 
 distribute to all the papers of the State, and to such per- 
 sons as may be interested or may apply therefor, a month- 
 ly bulletin, in suitable paper covers, containing results of 
 inspections, the results of analyses made by the State An- 
 alyst, with popular explanation of the same, and such other 
 information as may come to him in his official capacity 
 relating to the adulteration of food and drink products 
 and of dairy products, so far as he- may deem the same of 
 benefit and advantage to the pubHc; also a brief summary 
 of all the work done during the month by the commission- 
 er and his assistants in the enforcement of the laws of the 
 State, but not more than ten thousand copies of each such 
 monthly bulletin shall be printed. 
 
 [Am. bv Act No. 245, P. A. 1895. Am. by Act No. 154, P. 1897. 
 Am. by Act No. 268, P. A. 1899.] 
 
 10. (C. L., 4982) Sec. 10. Any person who shall 
 wilfully hinder or obstruct the Dairy and Food Commis- 
 sioner, or his deputy or other person or inspector by him 
 duly authorized, in the exercise of the powers conferred 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 11 
 
 upon him by this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
 )neanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine of 
 idtr less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dol- 
 ,ai(s, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 
 ten aays nor more than ninety days, or both such fine and 
 imprisonment in the discretion of the court. 
 I Added by Act No. 245, 1895.] 
 
 11. (C. L., 4983) Sec. 11. The sum of thirty-five 
 thousand dollars is hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 
 •ending June thirty, nineteen hundred six, and for each 
 fiscal year thereafter, there is hereby appropriated the 
 sum of thirty-five thousand dollars. Out of the amounts 
 appropriated by this act shall be paid all salaries and ex- 
 penses and chemical supplies provided for therein: Pro- 
 vided, That all expenses for stationery and printing shall 
 be audited and paid in the same manner as other State 
 printing and stationery. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 245, P. A. 1895. Am. by Act No. 154, P. A. 
 1897. Am. by Act No. 268, P. A. 1899. Am. by Act No. 186, P. A. 
 1901. Am by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 12. (C. L., 4984) Sec. 12. The Auditor General is 
 hereby directed to annually add to and incorporate into 
 the State tax, to be levied each year, the sum of thirty- 
 five thousand dollars, which, when collected, shall be credited 
 to the general fund to reimburse the same for the money 
 appropriated by this act. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 245, P. A. 1895. Am. by Act No. 154, P. A. 
 1897. Am. by Act No. 268, P. A. 1899. Am. bv Act No. 186, P. A. 
 1901.* Am. by Act No. 230, P. A. 1903. fAm. by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 13. Sec. 13. It shall also be the duty of the Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner to foster and encourage the dairy 
 industry of the State, and, for that purpose, he shall inves- 
 tigate the general conditions of the creameries, cheese fac- 
 tories, condensed milk factories, skimming stations, milk 
 stations and farm dairies in this State, with full power to 
 enter upon any premises for such investigation, with the 
 object in view of improving the quality and creating and 
 
12 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 maintaining uniformity of the dairy products of the State; 
 and should it become necessary, in the judgment of the 
 Dairy and Food Commissioner, he may cause instruction 
 to be given in any creamery, cheese factory, condensed 
 milk factory, skimming station, milk station, or farm dairy, 
 or in any locality in this State, and in order to secure the 
 proper feeding and care of cows, or the practical operation 
 of any plant producing dairy products, and in order to 
 secure such a uniform and standard quality of dairy pro- 
 ducts in this State, he shall furnish a sufficient number 
 of competent inspectors, the appointment of whom is pro- 
 vided for in section four of this act, and they shall be duly 
 qualified to act as such inspectors. 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 14. Sec. 14. Whenever it is determined by the Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner, his deputy or inspectors, that 
 any person is using, selling or furnishing to any skimming 
 station, creamery, cheese factory, condensed milk factory, 
 milk depot, farm dairy, milk dealer, the retail trade or to 
 any consumer of milk, any impure or unwholesome milk 
 or cream, which impurity or unwholesomeness is caused 
 by the unsanitary or filthy condition of the premises where 
 cows are kept, or by the unsanitary or filthy care or hand- 
 ling of the cows, or from the use of unclean utensils or from 
 unwholesome food, or from any other cause, the person 
 so using, selling or furnishing to any skimming station,, 
 creamery, cheese factory, condensed milk factory, milk 
 depot, farm dairy, milk dealer, the retail trade, or to any 
 consumer of milk, any such milk or cream, shall fir^t be 
 notified and warned by the commissioner, his deputy or 
 inspectors not to use, sell, or furnish such milk or cream 
 to such skimming station, creamery, cheese factory, con- 
 densed milk factory, milk depot, farm dairy, milk dealer, 
 the retail trade, or to any consumer of milk, and any per- 
 son failing to obey such notice and warning, and continuing 
 to use, sell or furnish to any skimming station, creamery, 
 cheese factory, condensed milk factory, farm dairy, milk 
 dealer or to the retail trade such impure or unwholesome 
 milk or cream, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 13 
 
 conviction thereof, shall be . punished by a fine not less 
 than ten dollars, nor more than fifty dollars, and costs of 
 prosecution, or imprisonment in the county jail, not to 
 exceed ninety days, or until such fine and costs are paid, 
 or both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the 
 court. , 
 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 15. Sec. 15. Whenever it is determined by the Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner, his deputy or inspectors, that 
 unsanitary conditions exist or are permitted to exist in 
 the operation of any skimming station, creamery, cheese 
 factory, condensed milk factory, milk depot, or farm dairy, 
 the proprietor or proprietors, or manager of said skim- 
 ming station, creamery, cheese factory, condensed milk 
 factory or farm dairy, shall be first notified and warned 
 by the commissioner, his deputy or inspectors to place 
 such skimming station, creamery, cheese factory, condensed 
 milk factor}^, milk depot or farm dairy in a sanitary con- 
 dition, within a reasonable length of time; and any person 
 or persons owning or operating such skimming station, 
 creamery, cheese factory, condensed milk factory, milk 
 depot, or farm dairy, failing to obey such notice and warn- 
 ing, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convic- 
 tion thereof, shall be punished by a fine (5f not less than 
 twenty-five dollars, nor more than three hundred dollars, 
 and costs of prosecution, or imprisonment in the county 
 jail, not to exceed ninety days or until such fine and costs 
 are paid, or both fine and imprisonment at the discretion 
 of the court. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 16.^ Sec. 16. It shall be the duty of the proprietor or 
 proprietors of every skimming station, creamery, cheese 
 factory, condensed milk factory or milk depot, in the State 
 where milk or cream is received by purchase or otherwise 
 from three or more persons, to register with the Dairy and 
 Food Commissioner on or before April first of each year, 
 upon blanks furnished by said official, the location of such 
 skimming station,, creamery, cheese factory, condensed 
 
14 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 milk factory or milk depot, and the name of its owner or 
 owners and manager. And it shall be the duty of the 
 proprietor or proprietors of every skimming station, cream- 
 ery, cheese factory, condensed milk factory or milk depot 
 in this State, where milk or cream is received by purchase 
 or otherwise froija three or more persons, to file a report 
 with the Dairy and Food Commissioner, said report to 
 be made on or before April first of each year, upon blanks 
 furnished by said official, and to show the amount of milk 
 or cream received by said skimming station, creamery, 
 cheese factory, condensed milk factory or milk depot dur- 
 ing the year ending December thirty-first preceding; and 
 said report shall show the amount of butter, cheese or con- 
 densed milk manufactured during the year, together with 
 a list of the names and postoffice addresses of the patrons of 
 said skimming station, creamery, cheese factory, condensed 
 milk factory or milk depot. Every skimming station,, 
 creamery, cheese factory, condensed milk factory or milk 
 depot, so registering and so reporting, shall pay to the 
 • office of the State Dairy and Food Commissioner an annual 
 registration fee of five dollars, to be paid at the time of 
 such registration. The money so collected by the Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner shall be paid into the State treas- 
 ury and be used to help defray the expenses of the office 
 of the Dairy and Food Commissioner, in addition to the 
 annual appropriation therefor. 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 17. Sec. 17. Any person, persons or corporation who 
 
 shall sell milk or cream from a wagon or other conveyance, 
 
 depot or store, or who shall sell or deliver milk or cream 
 
 to a hotel, restaurant, boarding house or any public place, 
 
 shall be considered a milk dealer; and every milk dealer 
 
 jA who shall sell milk or cream from a wagon or other con- 
 
 //r<;Veyance, depot or store, or who shall sell, or deliver milk or 
 
 V^f cream to a hotel, restaurant, boarding house or any public 
 
 ^*^ place in any city, town or village 'of this State, must first 
 
 obtain a license from the Dairy and Food Commissioner 
 
 to sell such milk or cream. A license shall be required 
 
 for each wagon or other conveyance, depot or store. Each 
 
 ^ 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 15- 
 
 dealer shall pay to the Dairy and Food Commissioner a'^X y ^ 
 license fee of one dollar for each license so granted, which ic'-' 
 license must be obtained on or before the first day of July y^ 
 of each year. The moneys received by the Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner, in payment of such licenses, shall be paid 
 into the State treasury and be used to help defray the ex- ''^'' 
 penses of the office of the Dairy and Food Commissioner 
 in addition to the annual appropriation. All licenses shall 
 be used only in the name of the owner of the wagon, depot 
 or store, and shall, for the purpose of this act, be prima 
 facie evidence of ownership. No license shall be sold^ 
 assigned, or transferred. Each license shall record the 
 name, residence, place of business, number of wagons,, 
 depots or stores used (where more than one is employed) 
 and the number of the hcense. Whoever violates any 
 .of the provisions of this section, in so far as relates to regis- 
 tration and the securing of licenses, shall be deemed guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and for each and every offense shall be 
 punished by a fine of not less than five dollars, nor more 
 than twenty-five dollars and the costs of prosecution, or 
 by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thir- 
 ty days, or both. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 18. Sec. 18. Any manufacturer, company, person or 
 persons who shall sell, offer or expose for sale or for dis- 
 tribution, in this State, any concentrated commercial feed- 
 ing stuff used for feeding five stock, shall furnish with each 
 car, or other amounts shipped in bulk, and shall affix to 
 every package of such feeding stuff, in a conspicuous place, 
 on the outside thereof, a plainly printed statement, clear- 
 'ly and truly certifying the number of net pounds in the 
 car or package sold or offered for sale, the name or trade- 
 mark under which the article is sold, the name of the man- 
 ufacturer or shipper, the place of manufacture, the place 
 of business, and a chemical analysis, stating the percent- 
 ages it contains of crude protein, crude fibre, nitrogen, free 
 extract and ether extract, all constituents to be deter- 
 mined by the methods adopted by the association of offi- 
 cial agricultural chemists. Whenever any feeding stuff 
 
16 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 is sold at retail, in bulk or in packages belonging to the pur- 
 chaser, the agent or dealer shall furnish to him a certified 
 copy of the chemical analysis named in this section. 
 
 (a) The term concentrated commercial feeding stuffs 
 as used in this act shall include linseed meal, cotton seed 
 meal, pea meals, cocoanut meals, gluten meals, oil meals 
 of all kinds, gluten feeds, maize feeds, starch feeds, mixed 
 sugar feeds, hominy feeds, rice meals, oat feeds, corn and 
 oat feeds, meat meals, dried blood, clover meals, mixed 
 feeds of all kinds, slaughter house waste products; also 
 all condimental stock foods, patented and proprietary 
 stock foods, claimed to possess nutritive properties and 
 all other materials intended for feeding to domestic animals : 
 Provided, That such feeding stuffs, as defined above, shall 
 not include hays, straws, fodders, ensilage, the whole seeds 
 nor the unmixed meals made directly from' the entire grains 
 of wheat, rye, barley, oats, flax-seed, maize, buckwheat, 
 wet brewers' grains, malt sprouts, wet or dried beet pulp 
 when unmixed with other materials. Neither shall it 
 include 'wheat, rye and buckwheat brans or middlings 
 not mixed with other substances, but sold separately as 
 distinct articles of commerce, nor pure grains ground 
 together. 
 
 (b) Before any manufacturer, company, person or 
 persons shall sell, offer or expose for sale in this State any 
 concentrated commercial feeding stuff, he or they shall, 
 for each and every feeding stuff bearing a distinguishing 
 name or trade-mark, file annually, with the Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner a certified copy of the chemical analysis 
 and certificate referred to in this section, and shall de- 
 posit with said Dairy and Food Commissioner a sealed 
 glass jar, or bottle, containing at least one pound of the 
 feeding stuff to be sold or offered for sale, together with 
 an affidavit that it is a fair sample of the article thus to 
 be sold or offered for sale. He or they shall also pay an- 
 nually into the State treasury a license fee of twenty dol- 
 lars for each and every brand of feeding stuff he offers or 
 exposes for sale in this State. Said fee is to be paid on 
 or before April first of each year: Provided, That when- 
 ever the manufacturer or importer shall have paid this 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 17 
 
 license fee, his agents shall not be required to do so. When- 
 ever any manufacturer, importer, agent or seller of any 
 commercial feeding stuff desires at any time to sell such 
 material and has not paid the license fee therefor, he shall 
 pay the license fee prescribed in this section, before mak- 
 ing any such sale. The money collected under the pro- 
 visions of this act shall be paid into the State treasury and 
 be used to help defray the expenses of the office of the 
 Dairy and Food Commissioner, in addition to the regular 
 appropriation therefor. 
 
 (c) Whenever the manufacturer, importer, agent or 
 seller of any [commercial feeding stuff shall have complied 
 with the requirements of this section, the Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner shall issue or cause to be issued, a license, 
 permitting the sale of said feeding stuff, which license shall 
 terminate on April first following the date of issue. 
 
 (d) All such analyses of commercial feeding stuffs re- 
 quired by this act, shall be made under the direction of 
 the Dairy and Food Commissioner, and shall be paid for 
 out of the funds arising from the license fees provided for 
 in this section. 
 
 (e) The Dairy and Food Commissioner shall publish, 
 or cause to be published in bulletin form, at least annually 
 a correct statement of all analyses made, together with 
 any incidental information concerning same which he may 
 deem proper. 
 
 (f) Any manufacturer, importer, company, agent, per- 
 son or persons, who shall sell, offer or expose for sale, with- 
 out first complying with the provisions of this act, any 
 commercial feeding stuff, or shall attach"^ or cause to be 
 attached to any car, package or other quantity of said 
 feeding stuff, an analysis stating that it contains a larger 
 percentage of any one or more of the constituents named 
 in this section than it really does contain shall, upon con- 
 viction thereof, be fined not less than one hundred dollars 
 for the first offense, and not less than three hundred dol- 
 lars for every subsequent offense, and the offender shall 
 also be liable for damages sustained by the purchaser of 
 such feeding stuff on account of such misrepresentation. 
 
 (g) The Dairy and Food Commissioner, by any duly 
 
18 STATE OF MICHIGAN. • 
 
 authorized agent, is hereby authorized to select from any 
 package of commercial or other feeding stuff exposed or 
 offered for sale in this State, a quantity not exceeding two 
 pounds for a sample, such sample to be used for the pur- 
 poses of an official analysis and for comparison with the 
 certificate filed with the Dairy and Food Commissioner,, 
 and with the certificate affixed to the package on sale. 
 • [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 19. Sec. 19. The published annual report of the Dairy 
 and Food Commissioner which shall be made to the Gov- 
 ernor, shall include a complete accounting of all moneys 
 received by the department from every source, and the 
 amount expended by the department. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 20. Sec. 20. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent 
 with this act so far as they are inconsistent are hereby 
 repealed. 
 
 This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 
 [Added by Act No. 49, P. A. 1905.] 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the powers and duties of the Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner of the State of Michigan. 
 
 (Act No. 167, Public Acts, 1899.) 
 
 21. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, That any person who shall obstruct the Dairy and 
 Food Commissioner, or his deputy, or any of his duly ap- 
 pointed inspectors, by refusing to allow him entrance to 
 any place where he is authorized to enter in the discharge 
 of his official duty, or refuses to deliver to him a sufficient 
 sample for the analysis of any article of food or drink sold, 
 offered or exposed for sale, or in his possession for the pur- 
 pose of sale, wherever the same may be found, when the 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 19 
 
 same is requested and when the value thereof is tendered, 
 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 
 thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than tw^enty- 
 five dollars or more than one hundred dollars and the costs 
 of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail not 
 less than ten days or more than ninety days, or by both 
 such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, 
 for each and every offense. 
 
 This act is oi'dered to take immediate effect. 
 
 AN ACT for the prevention and suppression of foul brood among 
 bees in the State of Michigan, and the inspection thereof, and to 
 make an appropriation therefor, and to repeal act number one hun- 
 dred forty-one of the public acts of eighteen hundred eighty-one, 
 being sections "fifty-six hundred sixty-three, fifty-six hundred sixty- 
 four, fifty-six hundred sixty-five, fifty-six hundred sixt5''-six, fifty- 
 six hundred sixty-seven, fifty-six hundred sixty-eight, fifty-six hun- 
 dred sixty-nine and fifty-six hundred seventy of the compiled laws 
 of eighteen hundred ninety-seven. 
 
 (Act No. 66, Public Acts, 1901.) , 
 
 22. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, The Dairy and Food Commissioner upon receipt 
 of a certified copy of the record of the Michigan State Bee- 
 keepers' Association, by the secretary of said association,, 
 showing that a majority of the members of said associa- 
 tion recommended the appointment of an inspector of apiar- 
 ies, shall appoint a State inspector of apairies. Said in- 
 spector shall be responsible to the Dairy and Food Commis- 
 sioner and shall comply with such rules and regulations: 
 as the Dairy and Food Commissioner shall from time to 
 time prescribe for the carrying out of the work of said State 
 inspector. 
 
 23. Sec. 2. The Dairy and Food Commissioner 'shall, 
 when notified in writing by the owner of an apiary or by 
 three disinterested tax payers in the vicinity of the apiary, 
 cause the inspector to examine such apiaries as are re- 
 
20 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 ported and all others in the same locality not reported, 
 and ascertain whether or not the disease known as foul 
 brood or other contagious disease exists in such apiaries, 
 and if satisfied of the existence of foul brood, he shall give 
 the owner or caretaker of the diseased apiaries full instruc- 
 tions how to treat said case as in the inspector's judgment 
 seems best. 
 
 24. Sec. 3. The inspector who shall be the sole judge 
 may visit all diseased apiaries a second time and if need 
 be burn all colonies of bees and combs that may be found 
 not cured of foul brood or other contagious diseases. 
 
 25. Sec. 4. If the owner of a diseased apiary, honey 
 or appliances shall knowingly or wilfully sell, barter or 
 give away any bees, honey or appliances, or expose other 
 bees to the danger of said disease or refuse to allow said 
 inspector to inspect such apiary, honey or appliances, said 
 owner shall on conviction before a justice of the peace, 
 be liable to a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more 
 than one hundred dollars, or not less than one month's 
 imprisonment in the county jail, nor more than two month's 
 imprisonment. 
 
 26. Sec. 5. In addition to such individual reports as 
 are required under this act by the inspector of apiaries, 
 he shall make an annual report to the Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner, giving the number of the apiaries visited, 
 the number of diseased apiaries found, the number of col- 
 onies treated, also the number of colonies destroyed by 
 fire, and an itemized account of his transportation ex- 
 penses with affidavit annexed thereto. 
 
 27. Sec. 6. There is hereby appropriated out of any 
 moneys in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated 
 a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars per year for the 
 suppression of foul brood among the bees in Michigan. 
 The inspector shall receive three dollars per day and actual 
 transportation expenses ft)r actual time served, which 
 sum shall not exceed the money hereby appropriated, to 
 be paid by the State Treasurer upon warrants drawn by 
 the Auditor General and approved by the Dairy and Food 
 Commissioner. 
 
 28. Sec. 7. Act number one hundred forty-one of the 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 21 
 
 public acts of eighteen hundred eighty-one, being section 
 fifty-six hundred sixty-three, fifty-six hundred sixty-four, 
 fifty-six hundred sixty-five, fifty-six hundred sixty-six, 
 fifty-six hundred sixty-seven, fifty-six hundred sixty-eight, 
 fifty six hundred sixty-nine and fifty-six hundred seventy 
 of the compiled laws of eighteen hundred ninety-seven 
 is hereby repealed. 
 
 This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 
 
22 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 GENERAL FOOD LAW. 
 
 AN ACT to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception 
 in the manufacture, and sale of articles of food and drink. 
 
 (Act No. 193, PubUc Acts, 1895.) 
 
 29. (C. L., 5010) Section 1. The People of the State 
 of Michigan enact, That no person shall within this State 
 manufacture for sale, have in his possession with intent 
 to sell, offer or expose for sale, or sell, any article of food 
 which is adulterated wdthin the meaning of this act. 
 
 [Am. by act No. 118, P. A. 1897.] , , „, j j^ J M^mWSEM 1 
 
 30. (C. L., 5011) Sec. 2. The term food, as used 
 herein, shall include all articles used for food or drink, or 
 intended to be eaten or drank by man, whether simple, 
 mixed or compound. 
 
 31. (C. L., 5012) Sec. 3. An article shall be deemed 
 to be adulterated within the meaning of this act: Firsts 
 If any substance or substances have been mixed with it, 
 so as to lower or depreciate or injuriously affect its quality 
 strength or purity; Second, If any inferior or cheaper sub- 
 stance or substances have been substituted wholly or in 
 part for it; Third, If any valuable or necessary constitu- 
 ent or ingredient has been wholly or in part abstracted 
 from it; Fourth, If it is an imitation of, or is sold under 
 the name of another article; Fifth, If it consists wholly 
 or in part of a diseased, decomposed, putrid, infected, tainted 
 or rotten animal or vegetable substance or article, whether 
 manufactured or not, or, in the case of milk, if it is the 
 product of a diseased animal; Sixth, If it is colored, coated, 
 poUshed or powdered whereby damage or inferiority is 
 concealed, or if by any means it is made to appear better 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 23 
 
 or of greater value than it really is; Seventh, If it contains 
 any added substance or ingredient which is poisonous or 
 injurious to health: Provided, That nothing in this act 
 shall prevent the coloring of pure butter: And provided 
 further. That the provisions of this act shall not apply 
 to mixtures or compounds recognized as ordinary articles 
 or ingredients of articles of food, if each and every pack- 
 age sold or offered for sale bear the name and address of 
 "the manufacturer and be distinctly labeled under its own 
 distinctive name, and in a manner so as to plainly and cor- 
 rectly show .that it is a mixture or compound, and is not 
 in violation with definition fourth and seventh of this section. 
 [Am. by Act No. 118, P. A. 1897.] 
 
 32. (C. L., 5013) Sec. 4. No person, by himself 
 or his agents or servants, shall manufacture for sale or offer 
 or expose for sale, or sell, as butter, and the legitimate prod- 
 uct of the dairy or creamery, any article not made exclu- 
 sively of milk or cream, but into which the oil or fat of 
 animals, or any other oils not produced from milk, enters 
 as a component part, has been introduced to take the place 
 of cream. Whoever violates the provisions of this section 
 shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon con- 
 viction thereof shall be punished by a fine gf not less than 
 fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, and the costs 
 of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail, or 
 the State House of Correction and Reformatory at Ionia 
 for not less than ninety days nor more than two years, 
 or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion 
 of the court for each and every offense. 
 
 33. (C. L., 5014) Sec. 5. No person shall manu- 
 facture, deal in, sell, offer or expose for sale or exchange, 
 any article or substance in the semblance of, or in imita- 
 tion of cheese made exclusively of unadulterated milk or 
 ■cream, or both, into which any animal, intestinal or offal 
 fats or oils or melted butter in any condition or state or 
 modification of the same, or oleaginous substances of any 
 kind not produced from unadulterated milk or cream shall 
 have been introduced. Whoever shall violate the provisions 
 of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 
24 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine 
 of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars 
 and the costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the 
 county jail or the State House of Correction and Reform- 
 atory at Ionia for not less than ninety days nor more than 
 two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the 
 discretion of the court for each and every offense. 
 
 34. (C. L., 5015) Sec. 6. Every manufacturer of 
 full milk cheese may put a brand upon each cheese, indicat- 
 ing 'Tull milk cheese," and no person shall use such a 
 brand upon any cheese made from milk from which any 
 of the cream has been taken. It shall be the duty of the 
 proprietor of every cheese factory, creamery or butter 
 factory in the State where milk or cream is purchased of 
 or contributed by three or more persons, to register the- 
 location of such cheese factory, creamery or butter factory 
 and the name of its owner or manager with the Dairy and 
 Food Commissioner on or before the first day of October, 
 A. D. eighteen hundred ninety-seven, and on or before the- 
 first day of April in each year thereafter. Whoever violates 
 any of the provisions of this section, in so far as it relates- 
 to registration, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,, 
 and for each and every offense shall be punished by a fine 
 of not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five dol- 
 lars and the costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in 
 the county jail for not more than thirty days or both. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 118, P. A. 1897.] 
 
 35. (C. L., 5016) Sec. 7. The Dairy and Food Com- 
 missioner shall procure and issue to the cheese manufac- 
 turers of the State, on proper appUcation, which applica- 
 tion shall be made on or before the first day of October,. 
 A. D. eighteen hundred ninety-five and on or before the 
 first day of April in each year thereafter, and under such 
 regulation as to the custody and use thereof as he may 
 prescribe, a uniform stencil brand, bearing a suitable de- 
 vice or motto and the words ' 'Michigan full cream cheese.'' 
 Every such brand shall be used on the outside of the cheese, 
 and upon the package containing the same, and shall bear 
 a separate number for each separate factory. The said 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 25 
 
 commissioner shall keep a book in which shall be registered 
 the name, location and number of each manufactory using 
 the brand, and the name or names of persons at each fac- 
 tory authorized to use the same. No such brand shall 
 be used on other than full cream cheese or packages contain- 
 ing the same. The commissioner shall receive a fee of 
 one dollar for each registration, said fee to be paid by the 
 party applying for the same, which amount shall be ac- 
 counted for and used as a part of the fund appropriated 
 for the enforcement of the laws of this State with which 
 the Dairy and Food Commissioner is charged. 
 
 36. (C. L., 5017) Sec. 8. No person shall knowingly 
 offer, sell or expose for sale, in any package cheese which 
 is falsely branded or labeled. 
 
 37. (C. L., 5018) Sec. 9. No person shall within 
 this State manufacture for sale, have in his possession with 
 intent to sell, offer or expose for sale, or sell as lard, any 
 substance not the legitimate and exclusive product of the 
 fat of the hog. 
 
 38. (C. L., 5019) Sec. 10. Every person who manu- 
 factures for sale, has in his possession' with intent to sell, 
 offers or exposes for sale, or sells, any substance made in 
 the semblance of lard, or as an imitation of lard, and which 
 consists of any mixture or compound of animal or vegetable 
 oils, or fats, other than hog fat, in the form of lard, shall 
 cause the tierce, barrel, tub, pail or package containing 
 the same to be distinctly and legibly branded or labeled 
 *'Lard substitute or compound,'^ and every person who 
 manufactures for sale, has in his possession with intent 
 to sell, offers or exposes for sale or sells, any substance made 
 in the semblance of lard or as an imitation of lard, or as 
 a substitute for lard, and which is designed to take the 
 place of lard, and which consists of any mixture or com- 
 pound of lard with animal or vegetable oils or fats, shall 
 cause the tierce, barrel, tub, pail or package containing: 
 the same to be distinctly and legibly branded or labeled 
 either ''Adulterated lard," ''Lard compound," or "Lard 
 substitute." Such brands or labels shall be in letters not 
 less than one inch in length and shall be followed with 
 
 4 
 
26 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 the name of the maker and factory, and the location of 
 such factory. 
 
 39. (C. L., 5020) Sec. 11. Every dealer or trader 
 who, by himself or agent, or as the servant or agent of 
 another person, offers or exposes for sale, or sells any form 
 of lard substitute or adulterated lard, as hereinbefore de- 
 fined, shall securely affix or cause to be affixed to the pack- 
 age wherein the same is contained, offered for sale or sold, 
 a label, upon the outside and face of which is distinctly 
 and legibly printed in letters not less than one-half inch 
 in length, the words ''Lard substitute" or "Adulterated 
 lard" or ''Lard compound" or other appropriate word 
 which shall corectly express its nature and use. 
 
 40. (C. L., 5021) Sec. 12. The having in possession 
 of any lard substitute or adulterated lard or lard compound, 
 as hereinbefore defined, which is not branded or labeled 
 as hereinbefore required and directed, upon the part of 
 any dealer or trader, or any person engaged in the public 
 sale of such articles, shall for the purpose of the act be 
 deemed prima^ facie evidence of intent to sell the same. 
 
 41. (C. L., 5022) Sec. 13. No person, firm or cor- 
 poration in this State shall manufacture for sale, or sell, 
 or offer or expose for sale, as fruit jelly or fruit butter, any 
 jelly or imitation fruit butter or other similar compound 
 made or composed in whole or in part of glucose, dextrine, 
 starch or other substances, and colored in imitation of 
 fruit jelly or fruit butter; nor shall any such jelly, fruit 
 butter or compound be manufactured or sold, or offered 
 for sale, under any name or designation whatever, unless 
 the same shall be composed entirely of ingredients not 
 injurious to health, and shall not be colored in imitation 
 of fruit jelly, and every can, pail or {)ackage of such .jelly 
 or butter sold in this State shall be distinctly and durably 
 labeled "Imitation fruit jelly or butter," with the name 
 of the manufacturer and the place where made. Who- 
 ever violates the provisions of this section shall be deemed 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and when convicted thereof shall 
 be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than 
 five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county 
 jail or State House of Correction and Reformatory at Ionia 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 27 
 
 for not less than ninety days nor more than two years, or 
 by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of 
 <of the court. 
 
 42. (C. L., 5023) Sec. 14. No packer or dealer in 
 preserved or canned fruits and vegetables, or other articles 
 of food, shall sell or offer for sale such canned articles, un- 
 less such articles shall be entirely free from substances 
 <Dr ingredients deleterious to health, and unless such ar- 
 ticles bear a mark, stamp, brand or label bearing the name 
 and address of the firm, person or corporation that packs 
 the same. All ^'Soaked or bleached goods," or goods 
 put up from products dried before canning, shall be plainly 
 marked, branded, stamped or labeled as such, with the 
 words ' 'Soaked or bleached goods, " in letters not less than 
 two-line pica in size, showing the name of the article and 
 the name and address of the packer. 
 
 43. (C. L., 5024) Sec. 15. No person shall manu- 
 facture or sell, or offer for sale any manufactured or arti- 
 ficial coffee berry in imitation of the genuine berry. No 
 person shall manufacture, sell or offer "or expose for sale 
 any ground or prepared coffee, which is adulterated with 
 chicory or other substance not injurious to, health, unless 
 •each package thereof shall be distinctly labeled or marked 
 ^ 'Coffee compound, " together with the name, and address 
 of the manufacturer or compounder thereof, and has no 
 other label of whatever name or designation. No person 
 shall offer or expore for sale, have in his possession with 
 intent to sell, or sell any molasses, syrup or glucose, unless 
 the barrel, cask, keg, can or pail containing the same shall 
 be distinctly branded or labeled with the true and appro- 
 priate name; nor shall any person offer or expose for sale, 
 have in his possession with intent to sell, or sell any molas- 
 ses or syrup mixed with glucose, unless the barrel, cask, 
 keg or pail containing the same be distinctly branded or 
 labeled ''Glucose mixture," and the per cent in which 
 glucose enters into its composition. Such barrel, cask, 
 keg or pail shall be branded or labeled in a conspicuous 
 place; and such brands or labels shall be in letters of not 
 less than one-half inch in length. Glucose and glucose mix- 
 tures shall have no other designation than herein required. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 118, P. A. 1897.] 
 
28 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 44. (C. L., 5025) Sec. 16. No person shall within 
 this State manufacture, brew, distil, have or offer for sale, 
 or sell, any spirituous or fermented or malt liquors, con- 
 taining any substance or ingredient not normal or healthful, 
 to exist in spirituous, fermented or malt liquors, or which 
 may be deleterious or detrimental to health when such 
 liquors are used as a beverage. 
 
 45. (C. L., 5026) Sec. 17. The taking of orders or 
 the making of agreements or contracts, by any person,, 
 firm or corporation, or by any agent or representative 
 thereof, for the future delivery of any of the articles, prod- 
 ucts, goods, wares or merchandise embraced within the 
 provisions of this act, shall be deemed a sale within the 
 meaning of this act. 
 
 46. (C. L., 5027) Sec. 18. Whoever shall falsely 
 brand, mark, stencil or label any article or product re- 
 quired by this act to be branded, marked, stenciled, or 
 labeled, or shall remove, alter, deface, mutilate, obliterate, 
 imitate or counterfeit any brand, mark, stencil or label 
 so required, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and 
 upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not 
 less than one Jiundred nor more than one thousand dollars 
 aad the costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the 
 county jail or State House of Correction and Reformatory 
 at Ionia, for not less than six months nor more than three 
 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the dis- 
 cretion of the court for each and every offense. 
 
 47. (C. L., 5028) Sec. 19. Whoever shall do any of 
 the acts or things prohibited, or wilfully neglect or refuse 
 to do any of the acts or things enjoined by this act, or in 
 any way violate any of its provisions, shall be deemed guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and where no specific penalty is pre- 
 scribed by this act shall be punished by a fine of not less 
 than twenty-five nor more than five hundred dollars, or 
 by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more 
 than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, 
 in the discretion of the court. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 117, P. A. 1899.] 
 
 48. (C. L., 5029) Sec. 20. It shall be the duty of 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 29 
 
 the Dairy and Food Commissioner of the State to investi- 
 gate all complaints of violations of this act, and take all 
 steps necessary to its enforcement. It shall" be the duty 
 of all prosecuting officers of this State to prosecute to com- 
 pletion all suits brought under the provisions of this act 
 upon the complaint of the commissioner or of any citizen. 
 It shall be the duty of all food inspectors in cities to ex- 
 amine all complaints made to them of violation of this 
 act, and to render assistance in enforcing its provisions. 
 It shall also be the duty of all health boards in cities and 
 health officers in townships to take cognizance of and re- 
 port or prosecute all violations of this act that may be 
 brought to their notice, or they may have cognizance of, 
 within their jurisdiction. 
 
 49. Sec. 21. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent 
 with this act are hereby repealed. 
 
 BUCKWHEAT FLOUR. 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the manufacture and sale of buckwheat flour. 
 (Act No. 208, Public Acts, 1903.) 
 
 50. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, Within this State no person shall manufacture, 
 offer or expose for sale, keep in possession with intent to 
 sell, or sell any ground buckwheat containing any product 
 of wheat, corn, rice or other foreign substance, unless each 
 and every package thereof be distinctly and legibly branded 
 or labeled ''Buckwheat Flour Compound" in letters not 
 less than one-half inch in length and be followed with the 
 name of the maker and factory and the location of such 
 factory. 
 
 51. ^ Sec. 2. Any brand or label herein required shall 
 be an inseparable part of the general or distinguishing label, 
 and such label shall be that principal and conspicuous sign 
 under^which it is sold, and any other label or printed mat- 
 
30 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 ter upon the package shall not be in contravention of the 
 requirements of this act. 
 
 52. Sec. 3. The having in possession of any buckwheat 
 flour compound, which is not branded or labeled as here- 
 inbefore required and directed upon the part of any person 
 engaged in the public or private sale of such article, shall, 
 for the purpose of this act, be deemed prima facie evidence 
 of intent to sell the same. 
 
 53. Sec. 4. The taking of orders or the making of 
 agreements or contract by any person, firm or corporation 
 or by any agent or representative thereof, for the future 
 delivery of buckwheat flour compound shall be deemed 
 a sale within the meaning of this act. 
 
 54. Sec. 5. Whoever shall do any of the acts or things 
 prohibited, or neglect or refuse to do any of the acts or 
 things enjoined by this act^ or in any way violate any of 
 the provisions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and shall be punished by a fine not less than twenty-five 
 dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprison- 
 ment in the. county jail for a period of not less than thirty 
 nor more than ninety days, or by both such fine and im- 
 prisonment in the discretion of the court. 
 
 55. Sec. 6. Act number eighty-four of the public acts 
 of eighteen hundred ninety-seven, entitled ^'An act to 
 prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception 
 in the manufacture and sale of buckwheat flour,' ' being 
 sections four thousand nine hundred ninety-four to five 
 thousand two, both inclusive, of the Compiled Law^s of 
 one thousand eight hundred ninety-seven is hereby re- 
 pealed. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 31 
 
 VINEGAR. 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the manufacture and sale of vinegar, and to 
 repeal act number two hundred and twenty-four of the public acts 
 of eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, approved July one, eighteen 
 hundred and eighty- nine. 
 
 (Act No. 71, Public Acts, 1897.) 
 
 56. (C. L., 5003) Section 1. The People of the State 
 of Michigan enact, That no person shall manufacture for 
 sale, offer or expose for sale, sell or deliver, or have in his 
 possession with intent to sell, or deliver, any vinegar not 
 in compliance with the provisions of this act. No vinegar 
 shall be sold as apple, orchard or cidar vinegar, which is 
 not the legitimate product of pure apple juice, known as 
 apple cider or vinegar, not made exclusively of said apple 
 cider or vinegar into which foreign substance, drugs or 
 acids have been introduced, as may appear upon proper 
 test, and upon said test, shall contain not less than one and 
 three-fourths per cent, by weight, of cider vinegar solids 
 upon full evaporation at the temperature of boiling 
 water. 
 
 57. (C, L., 5004) Sec. 2. All vinegar m'ade by fer- 
 mentation and oxidation without the intervention of dis- 
 tillation shall be branded ' 'ferijfiented vinegar," with the 
 name of the fruit or substance from which the same is made. 
 Aad all vinegar made wholly or in part from distilled liquor 
 shall be branded ''distilled vinegar," and all of such dis- 
 tilled vinegar shall be free from coloring matter added 
 during or after distillation and from color other than that 
 imparted to it by distillation. And all fermented vinegar 
 not distilled shall contain not less than one and three- 
 fourths per cent, by weight, upon full evaporation (at the 
 temperature of boiling water) of solids, contained in the 
 fruit or grain from which said vinegar is fermented, and said 
 vinegar shall contain not less than two and a half tenths 
 of one per cent ash or mineral matter, the §ame being the 
 product of the material from which said vinegar is manu- 
 
32 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 factured. And all vinegar shall be made wholly from the 
 fruit or grain from which it purports to be or is represented 
 to be made, and shall contain no foreign substance, and 
 shall contain not less than four per cent, by weight, of 
 absolute acetic acid. 
 
 58. (C. L., 5005) Sec. 3. No person shall manu- 
 facture for sale, offer for sale, or have in his possession with 
 intent to sell, any vinegar found upon proper test to con- 
 tain any preparation of lead, copper, sulphuric or other 
 mineral acid, or other ingredients injurious to health. And 
 all packages containing vinegar shall be marked, sten- 
 ciled or branded on the head of the cask, barrel or keg 
 containing such vinegar with the name and residence of 
 the manufacturer together with brand required in section 
 two hereof. 
 
 59. (C. L., 5006) Sec. 4. Whoever violates any of 
 the provisions of this act shall, upon conviction, be fined 
 not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dol- 
 lars, or imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed nine- 
 ty days and the costs of prosecution, or by both such fine and 
 imprisonment in the discretion of the court. 
 
 60. Sec. 5. All acts and parts of acts contravening 
 the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. 
 
 l^ILK. 
 
 AN ACT to prevent and punish offenders for the adulteration of miik, 
 and the products made therefrom, and to repeal an act entitled 
 "An act. to prevent the adulteration of milk and to prevent the 
 traffic in* impure and unwholesome milk," approved March thirty- 
 first, eighteen hundred and seventy-one. 
 
 (Act No. 26, Public Acts, 1873.) 
 
 61. (C. L., 11411) Section 1. The People of the State 
 of Michigan enact, That whoever shall knowingly sell to 
 any person or persons, or sell, deliver, or bring to be manu- 
 factured to any cheese or butter manufactory in this State, 
 any milk diluted with wate r, or in any way adulterated, 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 
 
 or milk from which any cream has been taken, or milk com- 
 monly known as ' 'skimmed milk/ ' or shall keep back any 
 part of the milk known as ' 'strippings, " with intent to 
 defraud, or shall knowingly sell milk, the product of a sick 
 jor diseased animal or animals, or any milk produced from 
 any cow fed upon the refuse of a distillery, or of a brew- 
 ery, or upon any substance deleterious to the quality of 
 the milk, or shall knowingly use any poisonous or any de- 
 leterious material in the manufacture of any cheese or 
 butter, or shall knowingly sell or offer to sell any cheese 
 or butter, in the manufacture of which any poisonous or 
 deleterious substance has been used, shall be deemed guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined 
 not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dol- 
 lars; and may be committed to the county jail until such 
 fine shall be paid: Provided, That such imprisonment 
 shall not exceed ninety days; and shall be liable in double 
 the amount of damages to the person or persons, firm, as- 
 sociation, or corporation upon which such fraud shall have 
 been committed. An act entitled ''An act to prevent 
 the adulteration of milk and to prevent the traffic in im- 
 pure and unwholesome milk," approved March thirty- 
 first, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, is hereby repealed: 
 Provided, That any right accrued or forfeiture incurred 
 under said act, shall remain valid and binding, and may 
 be enforced^under said act as if the same were not repealed. 
 
 AN ACT to prevent the sale of impure, unwholesome, adulterated, or 
 swill milk in the State of Michigan, and to provide for inspectors. 
 
 (Act No. 246, Public Acts, 1887.) 
 
 62. (C. L., 11412) Section 1. The People of the State 
 of Michigan enact, That it shall be unlawful for any per- 
 son, either by himself or agent, to sell or expose for sale 
 within the State of Michigan any unwholesome, watered, 
 or adulterated or impure milk or swill milk or colostrum, 
 or milk from cows kept upon garbage, swill or any sub- 
 
 5 
 
34 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 stance in a state of fermentation or putrefaction or other 
 deleterious substances, or from cows kept in connection 
 with any family in which there are infectious diseases. 
 The addition of water or ice to the milk is hereby declared 
 an adulteration. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 63. (C. L., 11413) Sec. 2. Any person who shall 
 violate any of the provisions of the preceding section shall 
 be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars 
 or (by) imprisonment not to exceed three months or by 
 both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the 
 court. 
 
 64. (C. L., 11414) Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of 
 the metropolitan poUce commissioners of the city of De- 
 troit, by and with the consent and advice .of the board of 
 health of the city of Detroit, to appoint an inspector, who 
 shall be a person of previous practical experience. Said 
 inspector may be created captain, sergeant or roundsman 
 of the said police force of the city of Detroit, at the option 
 of the board of metropolitan police commissioners. 
 
 65. (C. L., 11415) Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of 
 said inspector to personally view, so far as possible, all 
 milk exposed for sale in said city, and to visit all dairy 
 houses, barns, or stables in said city or the county of Wayne^ 
 to inspect the same, and the animals held therein, and 
 to visit all places where milk is kept or exposed for sale in 
 the city of Detroit, and to inspect and ascertain the con- 
 dition of said milk. He may detail any patrolman of said 
 city to assist him in the performance of any or all of the 
 duties* enjoined on him by this act: Provided, always. 
 That said inspector and any policeman so detailed shall 
 alway be subject to the provisions of the law establishing 
 and governing the metropolitan police of said city. 
 
 66. (C. L., 11416) Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of 
 said inspector or of his assistant, and of all other inspect- 
 ors appointed under this act, to make complaint in writing 
 before a police justice or justice of the peace, or other court 
 having jurisdiction thereof, of every violation of this act 
 coming to his knowledge. 
 
 [Am. by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 35 
 
 67. (C. L., 11417) Sec. 6. Each and every quantity 
 of milk sold or exposed for sale contrary to the provisions 
 of this act, shall constitute a separate offense. 
 
 68. (C. L., 11418) Sec. 7. Any person who shall 
 refuse to permit the said inspector, or his assistant (assist- 
 ants,) to perform his duty under this act, either by re- 
 fusing him entrance to his premises or by concealing any 
 milk, or refusing to permit any milk or animal or premises 
 wherein animals are kept, to be viewed and inspected as 
 herein provided, or by in any manner hindering or resist- 
 ing any said inspector or assistant inspector in the per- 
 formance of his duty, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and punished therefor. 
 
 69. (C. L., 11419) Sec. 8. Authority is hereby given 
 the common council of any city, and the board of trustees 
 or council of any village, to appoint an inspector of milk 
 in any such city or village, and to fix their compensation, 
 and when appointed the said inspectors of milk shall have 
 all the powers given by section four of this act, and shall 
 perform all the duties required of inspectors of milk as 
 provided herein, and such other powers and duties as may 
 be conferred or imposed by the ordinances of said cities 
 or villages. 
 
 70. (C. L., 11420) Sec. 9. Whoever shall adulter- 
 ate by himself, or by his servant or agent, or sell, exchange 
 or deliver, or have in his custody or possession with intent 
 to sell or exchange the same, or exposes or offers for sale; 
 or exchange, adulterated milk or milk to which water or 
 any foreign (substance) substances in any state of fermen- 
 tation or putrefaction, or from sick or diseased cows, shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, for every such offense, 
 be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars 
 or by imprisonment in the county jail or the State House 
 of Correction and Reformatory at Ionia not exceeding 
 three months. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 .71. (C. L., 11421) Sec. 10. Whoever shall adulter- 
 ate, himself, or by his servant or agent, sell, exchange or 
 deliver, or have in his custody or possession with intent 
 
36 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 to sell or exchange the same, or exposes or offers for sale 
 as pure milk, any skimmed milk from which the cream or 
 any part thereof has been removed shall be guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor, and shall, for such offense, be punished by the 
 penalty provided in the preceding section. 
 [Added by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 72. (a L., 11422) Sec. 11. Any dealer in milk who 
 shall by himself, servant or agent, sell, exchange or deliver, 
 or have in his custody or possession with intent to sell, 
 exchange or deliver the same, milk from which the cream 
 or any part thereof has been removed, unless in a con- 
 spicuous place above the center upon the outside of every 
 vessel, can or package from which any such milk is sold, 
 the words ' 'Skimmed milK " are distinctly painted in letters 
 not less than one inch in length, shall be guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 
 one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county 
 jail or Detroit House of Correction not exceeding three 
 months. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 73. (C. L., 11423) Sec. 12. If milk sold or offered 
 for sale under the provisions of this act as pure milk, is 
 shown upon analysis by weight to contain more than eighty- 
 seven and fifty one hundredths per centum of watery fluid, 
 or to contain less than twelve and fifty one hundredths 
 
 ^ i y of milk solids, per centum, or less fat than three per centum, 
 /i^^ or if the specific gravity at 60 degrees Fahrenheit is n'ot 
 between 1 29-1000 to 1 33-1000, it shall be deemed to be 
 adulterated. If milk sold or offered for sale under the 
 provisions of this act as skimmed milk has a specific grav- 
 ity at 60 degrees Fahrenheit less than 1,032, and greater 
 than 1,037, it shall be deemed to be adulterated. 
 {Added by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 74. (C. L., 11424) Sec. 13. Whenever any inspector 
 of milk has reason to beUeve that any milk found by him 
 is adulterated, he shall take specimens thereof and test 
 the same with such instrument or instruments as are used 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 37 
 
 for such purposes, and he shall make an analysis thereof, 
 showing total solids, the percentage of butter, the per- 
 centage of water and the percentage of ash; and if the result 
 of such test and analysis indicates that the milk has been 
 adulterated or deprived of its cream or any part thereof, 
 the same shall be prima facie evidence of such adulter- 
 ation in a prosecution under this act. 
 [Added by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 75. (C. L., 11425) Sec. 14. Any person who shall 
 remove the crealn or any part thereof from milk to be sold 
 as pure milk to any manufactory in which milk is used 
 as a material in the process of production, and any person 
 who shall, in any manner, adulterate such milk, either by 
 the addition of water or otherwise, shall be guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor, and shall, for every such offense, be punished 
 by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by im- 
 prisonment in the county jail or Detroit House of Correction 
 not exceeding ninety days. 
 
 [Added by Act No. 219, P. A. 1889.] 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the sale and delivery of milk. 
 (Act No. 106, Public Acts, 1899.) 
 
 76. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, No person shall offer or expose for sale, sell, ex- 
 change or deliver, or have in his possession with intent 
 to sell, exchange or deliver, any milk to which water, chem- 
 icals or preservatives, or any other foreign substance has 
 been added. The term milk as used in this act shall in- 
 clude all skimmed milk, butter milk, cream and milk in 
 its natural state as drawn from the cow. 
 
 77. Sec. 2. Whoever shall do any of the act or things 
 prohibited, or neglects or refuses to do any of the acts or 
 things enjoined by this act, or in any way violates any 
 of its provisions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one dollar 
 
38 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 nor more than one hundred dollars and the costs of pros- 
 ecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more 
 than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, 
 in the discretion of the court. 
 
 This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine or 
 imitation butter. 
 
 (Act No. 147, Public Acts, 1899.) 
 
 78. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, No person shall sell, expose or offer for sale or ex- 
 change, or have in his possession with intent to sell or ex- 
 change, any oleomargarine or other substance made in 
 imitation of butter, and which is intended to be used as 
 a substitute for butter, unless each and every vessel, pack- 
 age, roll or parcel of such substance has distinctly and 
 durably printed, stamped or stenciled thereon in black 
 letters the true name of such substance, in ordinary bold 
 faced capital letters, not less than five line pica in size; 
 and also the name and address of the manufacturer, to- 
 gether with the name of each and every article or ingredient 
 used or entering into the composition of such substance, 
 in ordinary bold faced letters, not less than pica in size. 
 
 79. Sec. 2. No person shall sell exchange or deliver 
 any oleomargarine or other substance made in imitation 
 of butter, and which is intended to be used as a substitute 
 for butter, unless he shall distinctly inform the purchaser 
 by a verbal notice at the time of the sale that the same 
 is a substitute for butter, and shall also deliver to the pur- 
 chaser of each and every roll, package or parcel of such 
 
 ^oleomargarine or other substance, at the time of the de- 
 livery of the sanie, a separate and distinct label, on which 
 is plainly and legibly printed in black ink in ordinary bold 
 faced capital letters not less than five line pica in size, the 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 39 
 
 true name of such substance and also the name and address 
 of the manufacturer, together with the name of each ar- 
 ticle used and entering into the composition of such sub- 
 stance, in ordinary bold faced letters not less than pica 
 in size. 
 
 80. Sec. 3. The proprietor or keeper of any store, 
 hotel, restaurant, eating saloon, boarding house, or other 
 place where oleomargarine is sold or furnished to persons 
 paying for the same, shall have placed on the walls of every 
 store or room where oleomargarine is sold or furnished, 
 a white placard on which is printed in black ink, in plain 
 Roman letters of not less than three inches in length, and 
 not less than two inches in width, the words "Oleomar- 
 garine Sold or Used Here," and shall at all times keep the 
 same exposed in such conspicuous place as to be readily 
 seen by any and all persons entering such store, or other 
 room or rooms. 
 
 81. Sec. 4. No person shall use in any way, in con- 
 nection or association with the sale or exposure for sale 
 or advertisement of any substance designed to be used 
 as a substitute for butter, thew^M "butter," "creamery," 
 or "dairy," or the name or representation of any breed 
 of dairy cattle, or any combination of such word or words 
 and representation, or any other words or symbols or com- 
 binations thereof commonly used in the sale of butter. 
 
 82. Sec. 5. For the purpose of this act the word '^but- 
 ter" shall be understood to mean the food product usually 
 known as butter, and which is made exclusively from milk 
 or cream, or both, with or without common salt, and with 
 or without additional coloring matter. 
 
 83. Sec. 6. For the purposes of this act certain manu- 
 factured substances, certain extracts, and certain mix- 
 tures and compounds, including such mixtures and com- 
 pounds with butter, shall be known and designated as 
 ^'oleomargarine," namely: All substances heretofore 
 known as oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butter- 
 ine, lardine, suine and neutral; all mixtures and compounds 
 of oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lard- 
 ine, suine and neutral ; all lard extracts and tallow extracts ; 
 and all mixtures and compounds of tallow, beef fat, suet, 
 
40 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 lard, lard oid, vegetable oil, butterine, lardine, suine and 
 neutral; all lard extracts and tallow extracts; and all mix^ 
 tures and compounds of tallow, beef fat, suet, lard, lard 
 oil, vegetable oil, intestinal fat, and offal fat, made in im~ 
 itation or semblance of butter, or when so made, calculated 
 or intended to be sold or used as butter or for butter. 
 
 84. Sec. 7. Whoever violates any of the provisions of 
 this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon 
 conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not les& 
 than fifty dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars, and 
 the costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county 
 jail or State House of Correction and Reformatory at Ionia,, 
 for not less than six months nor more than three years,. 
 or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion 
 of the court, in each and every offense. All acts or parts- 
 of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby 
 repealed. 
 
 This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 
 
 AN ACT to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale of imita- 
 
 tion butter. 
 
 (Act No. 22, Public Acts, 1901.) 
 
 85. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, No person, by himself or his agents, or servants, 
 shall render or manufacture, sell, offer for sale, expose- 
 for sale, or have in his possession with intent to sell, any 
 article, product or -compound made wholly or in part out 
 of any fat, oil or oleaginous substance or compound there- 
 of, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from 
 the same, which shall be in imitation of yellow butter pro- 
 duced from pure unadulterated milk or cream of the same: 
 Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed ta 
 prohibit the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in a. 
 separate and distinct form, and in such manner as will ad- 
 vise the consumer of its real character, free from colora- 
 tion or ingredient that causes it to look like butter. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 41 
 
 86. Sec. 2. Whoever violates any of the provisions 
 of section one of this act shall be deemed guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished 
 by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five 
 hundred dollars, and the costs of prosecution, or by im- 
 prisonment in the county jail or State House of Correction 
 and Reformatory at Ionia for not less than six months 
 nor more than three years,- or by both such fine and im« 
 prisonment in the discretion of the court, for each and every 
 offense. 
 
 RENOVATED BUTTER. 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the manufacture and sale of renovated butter. 
 (Act No. 243, Public Acts, 1903.) 
 
 87. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, No person, firm or corporation shall manufacture 
 for sale, offer or expose for sale, sell, exchange or deliver, 
 or have in his possession with the intent to sell, exchange 
 or deliver, any butter that is produced by taking original 
 packing stock butter or other butter, or both, melting the 
 same so that the butter fat can be drawn off or extracted,, 
 mixing the said butter fat with skimmed milk, or milk 
 or cream, or other milk product, and rechurning or re- 
 working the said mixture; nor shall any person, firm or 
 corporation manufacture for sale, offer or expose for sale,, 
 sell, exchange or deliver, or have in his possession for any 
 such purpose any butter which has been subjected to any 
 process by which it is melted, clarified or refined, and made 
 to resemble butter, and is commonly known as boiled, 
 process or renovated butter, and which for the purpose 
 of this act is hereby designated as '^Renovated Butter," 
 unless the same shall be branded or marked as provided 
 in section two of this act. 
 
 88. Sec. 2. Whoever, himself or by his agent, or a& 
 the servant or agent of another person shall sell, expose 
 
42 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 for sale or have in his custody or possession with the intent 
 to sell any ^'Renovated Butter/^ as defined in section one 
 of this act, shall have the words ' 'Renovated Butter' ' con- 
 spicuously stamped, labeled or marked in one or two lines 
 and in plain gothic letters, at least three-eighths of an inch 
 square, so that the words cannot be easily defaced, upon 
 two sides of each and every tub, firkin, box or package 
 <3ontaining said ' 'Renovated Butter;'' or, if such butter 
 is exposed for sale uncovered, or not in a case or package, 
 a placard containing said words in the same form as above 
 described in this section shall be attached to the mass in 
 siich a manner as to be easily seen and read by the purchas- 
 er. When ''Renovated Butter" is sold from such pack- 
 age or otherwise at retail, in print, roll or other form, before 
 being delivered to the purchaser, it shall be wrapped in 
 wrappers plainly stamped on the outside thereof with 
 the words "Renovated Butter" printed or stamped there- 
 on in one or two lines, and in plain gothic letters at least 
 three-eighths of an inch square, and such wrapper shall 
 contain no other words or printing thereon, and said words 
 "Renovated Butter" so stamped or printed on the said 
 wrapper shall not be in any manner concealed, but shall 
 be in plain view of the purchaser at the time of the purchase. 
 
 89. Sec. 3. Whoever shall violate any of the pro- 
 visions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 
 and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine 
 of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hun- 
 dred dollars, and the costs of prosecution, or by imprison- 
 ment in the county jail or Michigan Reformatory at Ionia, 
 for not less than six months nor more than three years, 
 or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion 
 of the court, for each and every offense. 
 
 90. Sec. 4. Act number two hundred fifty-four of 
 the public acts of eighteen hundred ninety-nine, entitled 
 ' 'An act to regulate the sale of butter produced by taking 
 original packing stock and other butter and melting the 
 same so that the butter oil can be drawn off, mixed with 
 skimmed milk or other material, and by emulsion or other 
 process produce butter, and butter produced by any simi- 
 lar process and commonly known as "process" butter; 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 43 
 
 providing for the enforcement thereof, and punishment 
 for the violation of the same/ ' is hereby repealed. 
 
 CANDY. 
 
 AN ACT to prevent the adulteration of candies and confectioneries 
 and the sale thereof, when so adulturated as to be injurious to the 
 public health. 
 
 (Act No. 11, PubHc Acts, 1887.) 
 
 91. (C. L., 11409) Section 1. The People of the State 
 ■of Michigan enact, That any person or persons manufac- 
 turing for sale or knowingly selling or offering to sell any 
 candies or confectioneries adulterated by the admixture 
 of terra alba, barytes, talc or otli^r earthy or mineral sub- 
 stances, or any poisonous colors, flavors or extracts, or 
 other deleterious ingredients detrimental to health, shall 
 upon proper conviction thereof, before a court of com- 
 petent jurisdiction, be punished by a fine not less than 
 ten nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisonment 
 in the county j.ail not less than ten nor more than thirty 
 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion 
 of the court. 
 
 92. (C. L., 11410) Sec. 2. It is hereby made the 
 duty of the local health officer or local board of health hav- 
 ing jurisdiction thereof to investigate without unnecessary 
 delay all complaints that may be properly brought before 
 them and containing the facts as supported by affidavit 
 of the parties complaining of the adulteration or sale of 
 adulterated candies or confectioneries, and if after inves- 
 tigation by such officer or board reasonable cause for action 
 is found to exist, then such officer or board shall at once 
 ^ive notice to the prosecuting attorney of the county in 
 which such complaint is made, and make or cause to be 
 made, before a proper officer, a formal complaint in writing 
 and duly verified, and thereupon said prosecuting attor- 
 ney shall immediately commence proceedings against the 
 person or persons so offending. 
 
44 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 LIQUORS. 
 
 AN ACT for the regulation of, manufacture and sale of spirituous 
 and intoxicating liquors. , 
 
 (Extract from Act No. 313, Public Acts, 1887.) 
 
 93. (C. L., 5403) Sec. 25. If any person shall adul- 
 terate any spirituous, or alcoholic liquors used or intended 
 for drink, uy mixing the same in the manufacture or pre- 
 paration thereof, or by process of rectifying, or gtherwise,. 
 with . any deleterious drug, substance, or liquid, which is 
 poisonous or injurious to health, except as hereinafter 
 provided, or if any person shall sell, or offer to sell, any 
 wine, or spirituous, or alcoholic liquors, or shall import 
 into this State, any wine, or spirituous, or intoxicating 
 liquors and sell, or offer for sale such liquors, knowing the- 
 same to be adulterated, or shall sell, or offer to sell, any 
 spirituous or intoxicating liquors from any barrel, cask,, 
 or other vessel containing the same, and not branded as 
 hereinafter provided, he shall be deemed guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be pun- 
 ished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, nor less 
 than fifty dollars, and shall be imprisoned in the jail of 
 the county not more than six months, nor less than ten 
 days. 
 
 94. (C. L., 5404) Sec. 26. It shall be the duty of 
 every person or persons, engaged in the manufacture and 
 sale of malt, spirituous, or alcoholic liquors, or in rectify- 
 ing or preparing the same in any way, to brand on each 
 barrel, cask, or other vessel containing the same, the name 
 or names of the person, company, or firm manufacturing,, 
 rectifying or preparing the same, and also these words,. 
 *' Ture and without drugs or poison.' ' 
 
 95. (C. L., 5405) Sec. 27. No person shall sell at 
 wholesale or retail, any ale, rum, wine or other malt or 
 spirituous liquors from any barrel, cask, or vessel, unless 
 the same shall have been branded and marked as aforesaid. 
 
 96. (C. L., 5406) Sec. 28. If any barrel, cask or other 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 45 
 
 vessel containing any drugged or poisoned liquor shall be 
 found in the possession of any wholesale or retail dealer 
 in liquors, or in the possession of any person holding himself 
 out as such a dealer, it shall be deemed prima facie evi- 
 dence of the violation of the provisions of this act. 
 
 97. (C. L., 5407) Sec. 29. Any person who shall 
 put into any barrel, cask, or other vessel, branded or marked 
 -as required by this act, any liquors drugged or adulterated 
 as aforesaid, or who shall sell or- offer for sale any such 
 liquors, for the purpose and with the intent of deceiving 
 any person in the sale thereof, or shall violate -any of the 
 provisions of sections twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty- 
 €ight, of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as pro- 
 vided in section twenty-five of this act. 
 
 98. (C. L., 5408) Sec. 30. The provisions of this 
 act shall not be so construed as to prevent druggists, physi- 
 cians, and persons engaged in the mechanical arts from 
 compounding liquors for medicinal and mechanical 
 purposes. 
 
 PEPPER. 
 
 AN ACT to provide for the manufacture and sale of black pepper in 
 this State and to provide a penalty for the violation of the pro- 
 visions of this act. 
 
 (Act No. 180, Public'Acts, 1901.) 
 
 99. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan 
 enact, Within this State no person, firm or corporation 
 shall manufacture, offer or expose for sale, keep in pos- 
 session with intent to sell, or sell any ground or whole black 
 pepper containing any foreign substance whatever. All 
 black pepper shall contain not more than six and one- 
 haK per cent ash or mineral matter ; and shall contain not less 
 than twenty-five per cent starch as determined by the 
 diastase method; and shall contain not less than six-tenths 
 
46 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 of one per cent nor more than one and three-fourths per 
 cent of volatile ether extract; and shall contain not more 
 than ten per cent nor less than six and one-half per cent 
 of non- volatile ether extract; and shall contain not more 
 than sixteen per cent of crude fibre. 
 
 100. Sec. 2. Whoever shall do any of the acts or 
 things prohibited, or neglects or refuses to do any of the 
 acts or things enjoined by this act, or in any way violates 
 any of its provisions, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, and shall be punished by a fine not less than twenty- 
 five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars and the costs 
 of the prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail not 
 more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprison- 
 ment, in the discretion of the court. 
 
 CORN SYRUP. 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the sale of corn syrup. 
 
 (Act No. 123, Public Acts, 1903.) 
 
 101. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan- 
 enact, No person shall offer or expose for sale, have in hi& 
 possession with intent to sell, or sell, any cane syrup, beet 
 syrup, or glucose, unless the barrel, cask, keg, can, pail or 
 package containing the same be distinctly branded or 
 labeled with the true and appropriate name; nor shall any 
 person offer or expose for sale, have in his possession with 
 intent to sell, or sell any cane syrup or beet syrup mixed 
 with glucose unless the barrel, cask, keg, can, pail or pack- 
 age containing the same be distinctly branded or labeled 
 * 'Glucose Mixture' ' or ''Corn Syrup" in plain gothic type 
 not less than three-eighths of an inch square, with the 
 name and percentage by weight of each ingredient contained 
 therein plainly stamped, branded or stenciled on each 
 package in plain Gothic letters not less than one-quarter 
 of an inch square. Each and every package of syrup either 
 simple or mixed shall bear the name and address of the 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 47 
 
 manufacturer. Such mixtures or syrups shall have no 
 other designation or brand than herein required that repre- 
 sents or is the name of any article which contains a sac- 
 charine substance; and all brands or labels required shall 
 be an inseparable part of the general or distinguishing label, 
 and that the general or distinguishing label shall be that 
 principal and conspicuous sign under which it is sold. 
 
 102. Sec. 2. Whoever shall do any of the acts or things 
 prohibited, or neglect or refuse to do any of the acts or 
 things required by this act, or in any way violate any of 
 the provisions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and shall be punished by a fine not less than twenty-five 
 dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by impris- 
 onment in the county jail for a period of not less than thir- 
 ty nor more than ninety days, or by both such fine and 
 imprisonment in the discretion of the court. 
 
 This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 
 
 PRESERVATIVES. 
 
 AN ACT in relation to the use of preservatives in food products. 
 
 (Act No. 13, Public Acts, 1905.) 
 
 103. Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan enacts 
 No person, firm or corporation shall manufacture, sell, 
 offer for sale, expose for sale, or have in his possession with 
 intent to sell, any food product containing benzoic acid 
 or benzoate of sodium, or any other harmless preservative, 
 unless each and every package containing the same shall, 
 in the condition in which it is exposed for sale, be distinct- 
 ly, conspicuously, and legibly branded, labeled or marked, 
 in plain English letters, with the words ' Trepared with' ' 
 followed by the proper English name of the preservative 
 used: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be con- 
 strued to prohibit or regulate, by branding or otherwise, 
 the use as a preservative of common salt, syrup, sugar, 
 salt petre, spices, alcohol, vinegar or wood smoke: And 
 
48 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Provided Further, That the provisions of this act shall 
 not apply to dairy products. 
 
 104. Sec. 2. Whoever shall do any of the acts or 
 things prohibited, or neglect or refuse to do any of the acts 
 or things required by this act, or in any way violate any 
 of its provisions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and shall be punished by a fine not less than ten dollars 
 nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment 
 in the county jail for a period of not more than ninety days, 
 or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion 
 of the # court. 
 
 This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 
 
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT 
 
 DECISIONS RELATIVE TO DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS 
 
 PEOPLE V. SNOWBERGER. 
 
 (Opinion filed May 25, 1897.) 
 
 Adulteration of Food — Statutory Offenses — Intent — Police Power. 
 
 1. It is competent for the legislature under the police power, to pro- 
 vide for the protection of the public health by making it an of- 
 fense punishable by fine and imprisonment to sell adulterated 
 food or drink, irrespective of the seller's knowledge of the adul- 
 teration. 
 
 12. Act No. 193, Public Acts 1895, prohibits the manufacture or sale 
 of adulterated articles of food or drink, and prescibes what shall 
 be deemed adulteration within the meaning of the. act. Section 
 8 forbids any person from knowingly offering for sale cheese which 
 is falsely labeled; this being the only case in which knowledge 
 is expressly made an element of an offense designated by such 
 statute. Held, that proof of guilty knowledge or intent is not 
 essential to^^the conviction of one who sells adulterated food. 
 
 (113 Mich. 86.) 
 
 Exceptions before judgment from Monroe; Kinne, J. 
 
 Michael Snowberger was convicted of selling adulterated food, in 
 violation of act No. 193, PubUc Acts of 1895. 
 Conviction affirmed. 
 
 William Look and Ira G. Humphrey, for appellant. 
 
 Bowen, Douglas & Whiting, of counsel. 
 
 Willis Baldwin, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people 
 
 7 
 
50 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Long, C. J.: Respondent was convicted under an information 
 charging that: ''On the 19th day of April, A. D. 1897, at the city 
 of Monroe, and in the county aforesaid, Michael Snowberger did offer 
 for sale, and sell, to Carl Franke, an adulterated article of food, to- 
 wit: A quantity of mustard, to wit, a quarter of a pound, colored 
 and adulterated with turmeric, whereby the said mustard, as an ar- 
 ticle of food, was damaged and its inferiority concealed and whereby 
 it was made to appear of better and of greater value than it really 
 was, the same not being a mixture or compound recognized as ordi- 
 nary articles or ingredients of articles of food; contrary to the form 
 of the statute in such case made and provided,' ' etc. 
 
 The information was filed under act No. 193, Public Acts 1895, 
 entitled "An act to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and 
 deception in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drink."" 
 The act provides: 
 
 Section 1. "No person shall within this State manufacture for 
 sale, offer for sale, or sell any article of food which is adulterated with- 
 in the meaning of this act." 
 
 Section 2. "The term food as used herein, shall include all articles^ 
 used for food or drink, or intended to be eaten or drunk by man, 
 whether simple, mixed or compound." 
 
 Section. 3. "An article shall be deemed to be adulterated within 
 the meaning of this act: One, If any substance or substances have 
 been mixed with it so as to lower or depreciate or injuriously affect- 
 its quality, strength or purity; Two, If any inferior or cheaper sub- 
 stance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for it; 
 Three, If any valuable or necessary constituent or ingredient has 
 been wholly or in part abstracted from it; Four, If it is sold under 
 the name of another article; Five, If it consists wholly or in part of 
 a diseased, decomposed, putrid, infected, tainted or rotten animal 
 or vegetable substance or article, whether manufactured or not, or 
 in case of milk, if it is the product of a diseased animal; Six, If it is- 
 colored, coated, polished or powdered, whereby damage or inferiority 
 is concealed, or if by any means it is made to appear better or of great- 
 er value than it really is; Seven, It it contains an added substance or 
 ingredient which is poisonous or injurious to health: Provided, That 
 the provisions of this act shall not apply to mixtures or compounds 
 recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles of food, if 
 each and every package sold or offered for sale be distinctly labeled 
 as mixtures or compounds, and are not injurious to health." 
 
 Section 19 makes any violation of the act a misdemeanor and pro- 
 vides a penalty by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500^ 
 or by imprisonment in the county jail, etc. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 51 
 
 On the trial respondent admitted, that on the 19th day of April, 
 1897, he, at the city of Monroe, this State, offered for sale and did 
 sell to Carl Franke a quantity of mustard, to wit, a quarter of a pound 
 which was afterwards found upon a chemical examination to be col- 
 ored and adulterated with turmeric, whereby the said mustard as an 
 article of food was damaged and its inferiority concealed, and it was 
 thereby made to appear of greater and better value than it really 
 was; the same not being a mixture or compound recognized as an 
 ordinary article or ingredient of articles of food. 
 
 But he claimed that said article of mustard, so sold was purchased 
 by him as a pure article in good faith, and that he believed at the time 
 of the purchase by him and also at the time of the sale to the said 
 Franke, that the same was pure mustard, free from any coloring and 
 adulteration with turmeric or any other coloring or adulterant, and 
 that no inferiority was concealed whereby it was made to appear of 
 greater or better value than it really was; that at the time he pur- 
 chased the same he asked for pure mustard and that the same was 
 warranted to him as pure; that he did not make or cause to have made 
 a chemical examination of the same and did not ^inform 
 himself or endeavor to ascertain the methods of determining pure 
 from impure mustards, but relied upon the representations of his 
 vender and the appearance of the article to the eye; and that he did 
 not intend to violate the law. 
 
 From such conviction respondent appeals. 
 
 It is the contention of counsel for respondent that it was the intent 
 of the legislature to provide by the act that no person should be con- 
 victed and punished for selling adulterated food or drink without 
 showing that he knew the same to be adulterated; that the informa- 
 tion does not charge such knowledge, and the proofs disclose that 
 respondent acted in good faith and in the belief that the article sold 
 was pure and unadulterated. 
 
 The act cannot be so construed. The offense under the act consists 
 in selling an article intended to be eaten or drunk which is adulter- 
 ated. Section 8 of the act shows conclusively that the legislature 
 did not intend to make criminal intent or guilty knowledge a neces- 
 sary ingredient of the offense. As a rule there can be no crime with- 
 out a criminal intent; but this rule is not universal. 
 
 In People v. Roby, 52 Mich. 577, (50 Am. Rep. 270), the respondent 
 was convicted of the offense under the statute of keeping his saloon 
 open on Sunday. It was there said; "It is contended that to con- 
 
52 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 stitute an offense under the section referred to (How. Stat., Sec. 2274), 
 there must be some evidence tending to show an intent on the part 
 of the respondent to violate it. * * * The section under which 
 Roby is prosecuted makes the crime consist, not in the affirmative 
 act of any person, but in the negative conduct of faiUng to keep the 
 saloon closed. As a rule there can be no crime without a criminal 
 intent; but this is not by any means a universal rule. One may be 
 guilty of the high crime of manslaughter when his only fault is gross 
 negligence, and there are many other cases where mere neglect may 
 be highly criminal. Many statutes which are in the nature of police 
 regulations, as this is, impose criminal penalties irrespective of any 
 intent to violate them; the purpose being to require a degree of dili- 
 gence for the protection of the public which shall render violation 
 impossible. " 
 
 Many cases are cited in that case where convictions were sustained 
 although the element of guilty knowledge was lacking. Thus in 
 Massachusetts a person may be convicted of the crime of selling in- 
 toxicating liquors as a beverage though he did not know it to be in- 
 toxic^ing. 
 
 Com. V. Boynton, 2 Allen, 160. 
 
 And of the offense of selling adulterated milk, though ignorant of 
 its adulteration. 
 
 Com. V. Farren, 9 Allen, 489. 
 Com. V. Nichols, 10 Allen 199. 
 Com. V. Waite, 11 Allen, 264. 
 Com. V .^ Smith, 103 Mass., 444. 
 
 In Missouri a magistrate may be liable to the penalty for perform- 
 ing the marriage ceremony for minors without consent of parents or 
 guardians, though he may suppose them to be of the proper age. 
 
 Beckham v. Nacke, 56 Mo., 546. 
 
 Where the killing and sale of a calf under a specified age is pro- 
 hibited there may be a conviction though the party was ignorant of 
 the animal's age. 
 
 Com. V. Raymond, 97 Mass., 567. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 53 
 
 In People v. Welsh, 71 Mich. 548, this court in speaking of People 
 V. Roby, supra, said: ''When a statute does not make intent an 
 element of the offense, but commands an act to be done or omitted 
 which in the absence of the statute might have been done or omitted 
 without culpability, ignorance of the fact or state of things contem- 
 plated by the statute will not excuse its violation;" citing: . 
 
 State V. Hartfiel, 24 Wis., 60. 
 
 In the late case in this court of Walcott v. Judge of Superior court, 
 112 Mich. 311, the relator, as prosecuting attorney of the county, filed 
 an information against one Fred Saunders, charging him with being 
 engaged in selling liquor without giving the bond required by the 
 statute. The bond was fair upon its face, but one of the sureties, it 
 appears, was disqualified under section 2283dl, 3 How. Stat. The 
 information did not allege that respondent had knowledge of this 
 defect in the bond. The information was quashed by the court be- 
 low, and the relator asked the aid of mandamus to compel the respond- 
 ent to reinstate the case. It was said by this court in the majority 
 opinion: *'It was the intention of the legislature to make the ex- 
 ecution and delivery of the prescribed bond a condition precedent 
 to sale, and ta require the person desiring to engage in the business 
 mentioned to assume the responsibility of knowing that the bond 
 when presented complies in all essential particulars with the law. 
 He must know that his sureties are males, that they are resident 
 freeholders of the township, village or city in which the business is 
 to be carried on, that they hold none of the offices prohibited by thet 
 act, and that at the time the bond is filed neither is a surety upon 
 more than two bonds required by the act." 
 
 It appeared that one of the sureties was already upon more than 
 two bonds; and the writ was granted compelling the respondent to 
 reinstate the case. The case of People v. Roby was cited in that 
 case in support of the proposition that intent was not an ingredient 
 of the offense. 
 
 These regulations are under the poHce power of the State. Un- 
 doubtedly it was competent for the legislature to prohibit the sale 
 of adulterated 'articles of food and drink. The police power of the 
 State extends to the protection of the health as well as of the lives 
 and property of the citizens. Generally it is for the legislature to 
 determine what laws and regulations are needed to protect the pub- 
 lic health and secure the public comfort and safety. If it passes an 
 
54 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 act ostensibly for the public health and thereby destroys or takes 
 away the property of the citizen or interferes with his liberty it is 
 for the courts to determine whether it relates to and is appropriate 
 to promote such public health. Under the police power the conduct 
 of individuals and the use of property may be regulated so as to in- 
 terfere to some extent with the freedom of the one and the enjoyment 
 of the other. It cannot be doubted that the legislature intended 
 by this act to protect the public against the harmful consequences 
 of sales of adulterated food, and to the end that its purpose might 
 not be defeated to require the seller at his peril to know that the article 
 which he offers for sale is not adulterated. 
 
 As was said by the supreme court of Ohio, in State v. Kelly, 54 
 Ohio St. 166: ''If this statute had imposed upon the State the bur- 
 den of proving * * * his knowledge of its adulteration, it would 
 thereby have defeated its declared purpose." 
 
 In State v. Smith, 10 R. I. 260, the court, in speaking of the offense 
 of seUing adulterated milk, said: "Counsel for defendant asked the 
 court to charge that there must be evidence of a guilty intent on the 
 part of the defendant and of a guilty knowledge in order to convict 
 him. Our statute in that provision of it, under which this indict- 
 meiit was found does not essentially differ from the statute of Mas- 
 sachusetts, and there previous to the enactment of our statute the 
 supreme court had determined that a person might be convicted al- 
 though he had no knowledge of the adulteration; the intent of the 
 legislature being that the seller of milk should take upon himself the 
 risk of knowing that the article he offers for sale is not adulterated." 
 
 Statutes in many states have been passed providing that whoever 
 sells, or keeps or offers for sale adulterated milk, or milk to which 
 water or other foreign substance has been added shall be punished, 
 etc. Under these statutes it has been decided many times that the 
 risk is upon the seller of knowing that the article he offers for sale 
 is not adulterated, and that it is not necessary in an indictment under 
 such a statute to allege or prove criminal intent or guilty knowledge. 
 
 Com. V. Smith, 103 Mass., 444. 
 Com. V. Warren, 160 Mass., 533. 
 People V. Clipperly, 101 N. Y., 634. 
 
 The same rule that no criminal intent is necessary has been held 
 to apply under an act forbidding the sale of oleomargarine or other 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 55 
 
 imitations of dairy products, unless express notice be given to the 
 purchaser. 
 
 Bayles v. Newton, 50 N. J., L. 549. 
 Com. V. Gray, 150 Mass., 327. 
 
 The English rule is in keeping with the doctrine in this country 
 on this subject. 
 
 Roberts v. Egerton, L. R., 9 Q. B., 494. 
 
 The statute not requiring knowledge on the part of the seller to 
 make the offense complete, we are satisfied that the conviction must 
 he sustained. No case has been cited, and we are not able to find 
 one, where a contrary doctrine is laid down. The act may work 
 hardship in many cases; but that question is one to be addressed to 
 "the legislature and not to the courts. As we have said, it was within 
 the power of the legislature to pass the act making it an offense pun- 
 ishable with fine and imprisonment to sell adulterated food or 
 drink, although the person selling the same has no knowledge that 
 it is adulterated. Under this statute one making sales must do so 
 at his peril. 
 
 The conviction is affirmed. 
 
 Grant, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred. 
 
 PEOPLE V. WORDEN GROCER CO. 
 
 (Opinion filed December 6, 1898.) 
 
 -Constitutional Law — ^Act to Prevent Sale of Adulterated Vinegar — 
 Complaint — Reasonableness of Statute — Defense. 
 
 1. The title to an act reading "An act in relation to the manufacture 
 
 and sale of vinegar, and to repeal Act No. 224 of the Public Acts 
 of 1889, approved, etc.," held broad enough to support an en- 
 actment to prevent deception in the sale of vinegar or to prevent 
 adulteration of vinegar. 
 
 2. A conviction for a sale of "fermented cider vinegar" which was 
 not up to the standard prescribed by Act No. 71, Public Acts 
 of 1897, may be had under a complaint drawn under section 2 
 of the act. 
 
56 - STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 3. ;The question as to whether the requirements of an act passed 
 
 to prevent the sale of adulterated vinegar are such as to render 
 the act unreasonable, cannot be determined by the courts and 
 does not raise a question of fact for determination by a jury. 
 
 4. Where a sample of vinegar is taken from a dealer for the purpose 
 
 of testing it to see if it conforms to the standard required by law 
 it is not necessary that a sample be left with the dealer. 
 
 5. A prosecution for a sale of vinegar in violation of Act No. 71, 
 Public Acts of 1897, cannot be defended on the ground that the 
 
 Eerson so manufacturing or selling vinegar below the standard 
 as no knowledge that it is not within the standard prescribed. 
 
 Error to the circuit court of Kent county; Allen C. Adsit, J. 
 
 Appeal of the Worden Grocer Co. from a conviction of a violation 
 of act No. 71, Public Acts of 1897. Affirmed. 
 
 Frank A. Rodgers, Prosecuting Attorney; Benn M. Corwin, As- 
 sistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. 
 
 Rood & Hindman, for respondent. 
 
 Long, J.: The complaint in this cause charges that the defend^ 
 ant: "On February 5, 1898, did unlawfully sell and deliver to John- 
 T. Owens of Benton Harbor, Michigan, a large quantity, to wit : One 
 barrel of vinegar which was not then and there in compliance with 
 the provisions of act No. 71, Public Acts, 1897, in this, viz.: That 
 said vinegar was sold as * 'fermented cider vinegar" and branded a& 
 such; that said vinegar contained less than one and three-fourths per 
 cent by weight upon full evaporation (at the temperature of boiling 
 water) of solids contained in the fruit from which said vinegar is fer- 
 mented, to wit: One and fifty-one one-hundredths per cent of solids; 
 and said vinegar contained less than two and a half tenths of one per 
 cent ash or mineral matter, the same being the product of the mate- 
 rial from which said vinegar was manufactured, to wit: Eight one 
 hundredths of one per cent of ash or mineral matter, against the form 
 of the statute in such case made and provided," etc. 
 
 The cause was commenced in the police court, and, being removed 
 to the circuit, came on to be heard before a jury. The defendant- 
 refused to plead, and counsel for defendant thereupon made a motion 
 to quash the complaint and summons for several reasons which will 
 hereafter be discussed. The court upon the trial directed a verdict 
 of guilty, and the cause comes to this court on exceptions before 
 judgment. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 57 
 
 The title of the act reads : ' 'An act in relation to the manufacture 
 and sale of vinegar, and to repeal act No. 224 of the Public Acts of 
 1889, approved," etc. Sections one and two of the act, being the 
 sections in question, provide: 
 
 "Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan enact, That no 
 
 f)erson shall manufacture for sale, olTer or expose for sale, sell or de- 
 iver, or have in his possession -with intent to sell or deliver, any vine- 
 gar not in compliance with the provisions of this act. No vinegar 
 shall be sold as apple, orchard or cider vinegar, which is not the legiti- 
 mate product of pure apple juice, kno-\\Ti as apple cider or vinegar 
 not made exclusively of said apple cider or vinegar into which for- 
 eign substance, drugs or acids have been introduced, as may appear 
 upon proper test, and upon said test, 'shall contain not less than one 
 and three-fourths per cent, by weight, of cider vinegar solids upon 
 full evaporation at the temperature of boiling water. 
 
 ' 'Section 2. All vinegar made by fermentation and oxidation with- 
 out the intervention of distillation shall be branded 'fermented vine- 
 gar' with the name of the fruit or substance from which the same is 
 made, And all vinegar made wholly or in part from distilled liquor 
 shall be branded 'distilled vinegar,' and all of such distilled vinegar 
 shall be free from coloring matter added during or after distillation 
 and from color other from that imparted to it by distillation. And 
 all ferme^ted vinegar not distilled shall contain not less than one 
 and three-fourths per cent, by weight, upon full evaporation (at the 
 temperature of boiling water) of solids, contained in the fruit or grain 
 from which said vinegar is fermented, and said vinegar shall contain 
 not less than two and a half tenths of one per cent ash or mineral 
 matter, the same being the product of the material from which said 
 vinegar is manufactured. And all vinegar shall be made wholly from 
 the fruit or grain from which it purports to be or is represented to 
 be made, and shall contain no foreign substance and shall contain 
 not less than four per cent, by weight, of absolute acetic acid." 
 
 It appears by the testimony that the defendant, a Michigan cor- 
 poration doing business at Grand Rapids, on February 5, 1898, sold 
 a barrel of vinegar to one John T. Owens of Benton Harbor. The 
 sale is admitted. A sample of the vinegar was taken from this bar- 
 rel and analyzed by the State analyst, Mr. Fred H. Borradaile. The 
 correctness of this analysis is not disputed. This analysis showed 
 that the vinegar did not comply with the requirements of the statute 
 in that it did not contain the amount of solids nor the amount of ash 
 or mineral matter required. 
 
 The contentions made by counsel for defendant mostly relate ta 
 the validity of the act. 
 
 1. It is contended that the title to the act does not express any^ 
 8 
 
58 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 object: tfiat the act was intended to prevent deception in the sale 
 of vinegar or to prevent adulteration of vinegar, but that no such 
 object is expressed in the title; and that the act is therefore in conflict 
 with section 20 of article 4, of the constitution of this State, which 
 provides that: ''No law shall embrace more than one object, which 
 shall be expressed in its title." 
 
 We think this contention sufficiently answered by what was said 
 by this court in Soukup v. Van Dyke, 109 Mich, 681. There the 
 title was: ''An act relative to justices' courts in the city of Grand 
 Rapids." It was said: "The title is sufficient if it fairly and reason- 
 ably announces the object and that is a single one. If this require- 
 ment be observed, the legislature must determine for itself how broad 
 and comprehensive shall be the object of a statute and how much 
 particularity shall be employed in the title in defining it. " 
 
 In People v. Kelly, 99 Mich. 82, the title under discussion was: 
 "^'An act relative to disorderly persons, and to repeal," etc. 
 
 See also: 
 
 State V. County Judges, 2 Iowa, 280. 
 
 McAunich v. The Miss. & Mo. R. R. Co., 20 Iowa, 342. 
 
 2. Counsel contend that the complaint being drawn under section 
 iiwo of the act, no conviction can follow; that if any violation of the 
 law be found, it is of section one and not of section two of the act; 
 iihat, therefore, the complaint was drawn under the wrong section. 
 
 This contention cannot be sustained. It is plain from the read- 
 ing of these sections that the legislature intended that all fermented 
 vinegar should come up to the required standard, whether made from 
 fruit or grain. 
 
 3. The defendant contends that the act is unreasonable and there- 
 fore void as beyond the police power of the State, in that the test 
 for cider vinegar in regard to solids is arbitrary, unscientific and not 
 •calculated to accomplish the end sought by the legislature, viz.: To 
 protect the public health against spurious vinegar; that such test 
 is no test, because: 
 
 a. Said solids and ash are indifferent ingredients of vinegar from 
 a hygienic stand point. 
 
 b. Their comparative absence or presence is not an essential in- 
 gredient of pure apple cider vinegar. 
 
 c. A vinegar can be manufactured which will satisfy the require- 
 ments of the statute and yet contain no materials from apples or the 
 product of apples. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 59 
 
 d. A pure apple cider vinegar is frequently made which is below 
 the requirements of the statute in solids and ash, 
 
 e. The less proportion of solids is a proof of greater purity in the 
 vinegar and of its better keeping qualities. 
 
 These questions might very properly be addressed to the legisla- 
 ture, but are matters with which the court has nothing to do. It 
 is not a part of the functions of the court to^ investigate the facts en- 
 tering into questions of public policy merely. Under our system that 
 power is lodged in the legislative branch of the government. It be- 
 longs to that branch to determine primarily what measures are ap- 
 propriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public 
 health or the public safety. 
 
 Barton v. McWhinney, 85 Ind., 481. 
 Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S., 660. 
 Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 685. 
 
 In People v. Snowberger, 113 Mich. 92, it was said by this court: 
 ^'The act may work hardship in many cases, but that question is one 
 to be addressed to the legislature and not to the courts." 
 
 The question of the reasonableness of the acts found in many states 
 relative to the sale of milk below a certain standard has been frequent- 
 ly raised in the courts, and the acts upheld. 
 
 In Com. V. Evans, 132 Mass, 11, the court passing upon such a 
 statute, said: "The intention of the legislature and the practical 
 operation of this section in connection with the third section is to 
 provide that it shall be unlawful to sell milk containing' less than thir- 
 teen per centum of milk solids. This belongs to the class of police 
 regulations designated to prevent frauds and to protect the health 
 of the people, which it is within the constitutional power of the legis- 
 lature to enact." 
 
 In State v. Smyth, 14 R. I. 100, the court said: "It was the pur- 
 pose of the statute to prohibit, not only the dealing in milk which 
 had been adulterated, but also in milk of such inferior quality as to 
 fall below the standard named in section three. It is equally a fraud 
 on the buyer, whether the milk which he buys was originally good 
 a,nd has been deteriorated by the addition of water or whether in its 
 natural state it is so poor that it contains the same proportion of water 
 as that which has been adulterated." See also: 
 
 State V. Newton, 45 N. J. L., 469. 
 Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y., 509. 
 State V. Campbell, 64- N. H., 403. 
 10 Am. St. Rep. 419. 
 
60 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 But counsel contend that the reasonableness of this act is a ques- 
 tion of fact for the jury to determine from the expert chemical 
 evidence. 
 
 This question is neither for the court nor the jury to determine. In 
 People V. Clipperly, 101 N. Y. 634, that very question was discussed 
 and decided adversely to the claim here. It was said: "The de- 
 fendant takes the broader ground that the legislature cannot under 
 the constitution prohibit the sale of milk drawn from healthy cow& 
 which in its natural state falls below standard fixed by the act, un- 
 less such milk, or the articles made from it, are in fact unwholesome 
 or dangerous to public health. How is that question of fact to be 
 determined? The court cannot take judicial notice whether milk 
 below the standard is or is not unwholesome or dangerous to public 
 health. Is that to be a question for the jury? If so, the court must 
 charge a jury in each case that if they find milk below that standard 
 to be unwholesome, then the statute is constitutional; if they find it- 
 to be wholesome, then the statute is unconstitutional. Evidently 
 a constitutional question cannot be settled, or rather, unsettled ia 
 that way. The constitutionality would vary with the varying judg- 
 ments of juries." 
 
 In the emery wheel case before us, in People v. Smith, 108 Mich.,, 
 p. 534, a somewhat similar question was discussed. It was said: 
 "If the courts find the plain provisions of the constitution violated,, 
 or if it can be said that the act is not within the rule of necessity in 
 view of facts of which judicial notice may be taken, then the act 
 must fall; otherwise it should stand. " 
 
 See also: 
 
 People V. Girard, 145 N. Y., 109. 
 (45 Am. St. Rep. 595.) 
 
 4. Counsel also contend that defendant was not allowed, nor 
 could it obtain, a sample of the vinegar in question for analysis, and 
 was deprived of the right to produce evidence as to the amount of 
 solids in the vinegar; and was thus deprived of property without due 
 process of law. 
 
 The record shows that the defendant was not prevented from get- 
 ting a sample of the vinegar by any person interested in the prosecu- 
 tion of the suit. The record shows that the only effort it made to« 
 get such sample was a letter written to Mr. Owens who had bought 
 and paid for the vinegar, requesting him to return it, to which th& 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 61 
 
 "defendant received no reply, and it does not appear that Mr. Owens 
 had any of the vinegar left at that time. No sample was left with 
 ■the defendant by the prosecution; nor was this necessary. 
 
 Com. V. Coleman, 157 Mass., 460. 
 
 5. This statute forbids the manufacture and sale of vinegar not in 
 -compliance therewith; and persons manufacturing or selling vinegar 
 below the standard do so at their peril. It is no defense that the 
 person so manufacturing or selling vinegar below the standard has 
 no^knowledge that it is not within the standard prescribed. 
 
 People V. Snowberger, 113 Mich. 86; 71 N. W. R., 497. 
 
 "We have examined the other questions raised, but do not deem it 
 necessary to discuss them. They relate mostly to offers of testimony 
 which the court below ruled out; and, we think, properly. 
 
 The testimony was' uncontradicted that the vinegar sold was not 
 in compliance with the statute. The sale was admitted. 
 
 The court was not in error in directing the verdict. The convic- 
 tion must be affirmed. 
 
 Grant, C. J., did not sit. The other justices concurred. 
 
 PEOPLE V. DETTENTHALER. 
 
 GROSVENOR v. JACKSON CIRCUIT JUDGE. 
 
 (Opinions filed December 6, 1898.) 
 
 Constitutional Law — Passage of Act Without Enactment Clause — • 
 
 Constitutional Provision Mandatory — Addition of Clause 
 
 by Governor — Act 76, Laws of 1897, Invalid. 
 
 1. The provision in the Michigan State constitution, found in Sec. 
 48 of Art. IV, that all laws shall be styled, * 'The People of the 
 State of Michigan enact," is mandatory and the passage of an 
 act without the enactment clause renders the act m valid. 
 
 2. The addition of the enacting clause by the Governor before affix- 
 ing his signature will not render the law valid which was passed 
 without an enactment clause. 
 
62 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 3. Act No. 76, Laws of 1897, being "An act to prevent deception 
 in the manufacture and sale of imitation butter" held to be in- 
 valid because of the passage of the act without an enactment- 
 clause was not rendered valid by the addition of such clause by 
 the Governor before affixing his signature to the act. 
 
 Error to the superior court of Grand Rapids; Edwin A. Burlin- 
 game, judge. 
 
 Exceptions taken by Frank J. Dettenthaler from a conviction of 
 a violation of the pure food law. — Reversed and no new trial. 
 
 Frank D. Rodgers, Prosecuting Attorney, (Rodgers, McDonald & 
 Corwin of counsel), for the people. 
 
 Rood & Hindman and E. F. Sweet, for respondent. 
 
 Certiorari by Elliot O. Grosvenor, Dairy and Food Commissioner, 
 to review the action of the Jackson circuit judge in denying a man- 
 damus. Affirmed. 
 
 John G. Hawley and Benn M. Corwin, for relator. 
 
 Rood & Hindman and E. F. Sweet, for respondent. 
 
 Hooker, J.: These cases involve the validity of act No. 76, Pub- 
 lic Acts, 1897, which is as follows: 
 
 "An act to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale of im- 
 itation butter." ^ 
 
 Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan enact, That no 
 person by himself or his agents, or servants, shall render or manu- 
 facture, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or have in his possession 
 with intent to sell, any article, product or compound made wholly 
 or in part out of any fat, oil or oleaginous substance or compound 
 thereof, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the 
 same, which shall be in imitation of yellow butter, produced from 
 pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same: Provided, That 
 nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the manufacture 
 or sale of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form, and in such 
 manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free from 
 coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter. 
 
 Sec. 2. Whoever violates any of the provisions of section one (1) 
 of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon con- 
 viction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dol- 
 lars, nor more than five hundred dollars, and the costs of prosecution, 
 or by imprisonment in the county jail, or State House of Correction. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 63 
 
 and Reformatory at Ionia, for not less than six months nor more than 
 three years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion 
 of the court for each and every offense. 
 Approved April 15, 1897. 
 
 The evidence in the first entitled cause shows that the defendant 
 was convicted of the alleged offense of selling oleomargarine in con- 
 travention of this act. 
 
 In the other a complaint was made of a similar act to a justice, 
 who refused to issue the warrant, and on application the circuit court 
 denied a mandamus to compel it. The cases raise substantially the 
 same questions, and were argued, and will be considered together. 
 The validity of the law is questioned. The record shows that this 
 was a senate bill and passed the senate without the constitutional 
 enacting clause. The records of the house show that the bill was 
 reported by the committee on agriculture and the committee of 
 the whole, without amendment, and with the recommendation 
 that it be passed. Under the head of ''third reading of bills^ 
 upon passage," the record of the house shows that "pending the 
 third reading of the bill, Mr. Chamberlain moved that the bill 
 be recommitted to the committee of the whole, which motion 
 did not prevail. The bill having been read a third time, and the 
 question being upon its passage pending the taking of the vote, Mr. 
 Graham demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded. 
 The question being, 'Shall the main question be npw put?' The 
 same was ordered. The bill was then passed, a majority of all the 
 members elect voting therefor, by yeas and nays as follows: * * * 
 yeas 56, nays 19." As this is the only time the bill was before the 
 house, we must find that the bill passed the house without an en- 
 acting clause, unless the contrary can be shown by other evidence. 
 Counsel undertook to show that it was amended in this particular, 
 by the records of the senate, and the testimony of the clerk of the 
 house. The evidence is in brief, that previous to the passage of the 
 bill in the house the clerk noticed the absence of the enacting clause, 
 and brought it to the attention of the house, and said that he would 
 enter one, and accordingly wrote the words in the original bill, i. e., 
 the one which was then before the house. He did not testify that 
 the house took any action upon it, or that any record was made of it. 
 
 The senate record shows that the bill was subsequently returned 
 to the senate, accompanied by a letter from the clerk of the house ^ 
 reading as follows: 
 
^64 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 "House of Representatives, 
 
 " Lansing, April 7, 1897. 
 ^'To the President of the Senate: 
 
 "Sir — I am instructed by the House to return to the Senate the 
 following bill: Senate bill No. 6, file No. 24, entitled 
 
 "A bill to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale of imi- 
 tation butter' and to inform the Senate that the House has amended 
 the same as follows: By inserting in line 1, Section 1, after the words 
 'Section 1,' the words 'The People of the State of Michigan enact.' 
 
 " Very respectfully, 
 "LEWIS M. MILLER, 
 "Clerk of the House of Representatives. 
 "In the passage of which, as thus amended, the house has con- 
 curred by a majority vote of all the members elect." 
 
 It further appears that the Senate concurred in such amendment. 
 We must determine, therefore, whether the house is shown to have 
 amended the bill by inserting an enacting clause and if not whether 
 the law is valid without it. 
 
 The most that can be claimed is that there is oral testimony, that 
 the clerk announced its absence and stated that he would supply it. 
 Inferentially perhaps we may say that there was no objection made, 
 but the evidence is silent as to what, if anything, occurred. There 
 is nothing but this inference of silence which imports acquiescence 
 in the amendment. There is nothing to show definite action by 
 the house which alone had power to amend the bill before it. So 
 that if the clause is essential to the validity of the act we need not 
 discuss the propriety of admitting parol evidence to prove an amend- 
 ment which should be shown by the record if one was authorized. 
 
 See Attorney General v. Rice, 64 Mich., 391. 
 Hart V. McElroy, 72 Mich., 446. 
 Sackrider v. Supervisors, 79 Mich., 66. 
 
 Is the constitutional enacting clause a requisite to a valid law? 
 This must depend upon whether the constitutional provision is to 
 be considered a mandatory provision or directory merely. 
 
 See Constitution, Art. IV., Sec. 48. 
 
 Among the authorities cited by the relator in support of his con- 
 tention, is that of Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268. The constitutional 
 provision is similar to ours, and it was held that a substantial com- 
 pliance was sufficient. In that case the style of the resolution was: 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 65 
 
 '''Resolved by the legislature of the State of Mississippi." The court 
 was unable to discover a previous judicial decision of the question, 
 but quoted Mr, Gushing to the effect that the prescribed ''form must 
 be strictly pursued, and that no equivalent language will be sufficient," 
 and while declining to accept his rule said: "It is necessary that 
 every law should show on its face the authority by which it is adopted, 
 and promulgated, and that it should clearly appear that it is intended 
 by the legislative power that enacts it that it should take effect as 
 a law. These conditions being fulfilled all that is absolutely neces- 
 sary is expressed. The word 'resolved' is as potent to declare the 
 legislative will, as* the word 'enacted.' " 
 
 The case of McPherson v. Leonard, 29 Md. 377, held that the pro- 
 vision of the constitution of Maryland was directory, and that the 
 omission of the words, "by the general assembly of Maryland," did 
 not render the law invalid. The question appears to have been treated 
 as a new one. 
 
 The case of Cape Girardeau v. Riley, 52 Mo. 427, follows the Mary- 
 land case, in holding the provision directory; the court saying that 
 after diligent search, no case holding to the contrary had been found. 
 In this case, like the one before us, the entire enacting clause was 
 wanting. In this connection we may add that previous decisions 
 of the same court, holding the provision that writs should run in the 
 name of the state, was directory, were given weight. In our State 
 a contrary holding wiU be found. 
 
 See Forbes v. Darling, 94 Mich., 621. 
 
 There are, however, cases which take a contrary view of the law, 
 and adhere to the doctrine asserted by Mr. Gushing, and the late Mr. 
 Justice Gooley, in his work on constitutional limitations, 6 Ed., p. 
 93, viz.: 
 
 "But the courts tread upon very dangerous ground when they ven- 
 ture to apply the rules which distinguish directory and mandatory 
 statutes to the provisions of a constitution. Constitutions do not 
 usually undertake to prescribe mere rules of proceeding, except when 
 such rules are looked upon as essential to the thing to be done; and 
 they must then be regarded in the light of limitations upon the power 
 to be exercised. It is the province of an instrument of this solemn 
 and permanent character to establish those fundamental maxims and 
 fix those unvarying rules by which all departments of the govern- 
 ment must at all times shape their conduct, and if it descends to pre- 
 scribing mere rules of order in unessential matters, it is lowering the 
 
STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 proper dignity of such an instrument, and usurping the proper pro- 
 vince of ordinary legislation. We are not, therefore, to expect to- 
 find in a constitutional provision which the people, in adopting it, 
 have not regarded as of high importance, and worthy to be embraced 
 in an instrument, which, for a time at least, is to control alike the 
 government and the governed, and to form a standard by which is- 
 to be measured the power which can be exercised as well by the dele- 
 gate as by the sovereign people thfemselves. If directions are given 
 respecting the times or modes of proceeding in which a power should 
 be exercised, there is at least a strong presumption that the people 
 designed it should be exercised, in that time and mode only; and we- 
 impute to the people a want of due appreciation of the purpose and 
 proper province of such an instrument, when we infer that such direc- 
 tions are given to any other end. Especially when, as has already 
 been said, it is but fair to presume that the people in their constitu- 
 tion have expressed themselves in careful and measured terms, cor- 
 responding with the immense importance of the powers delegated ,. 
 and with a view to leave as little as possible to implication. " 
 
 There are some cases, however, where the doctrine of directory 
 statutes has been applied to constitutional provisions, but they are 
 so plainly at variance with the weight of authority upon the precise- 
 points considered that we feel warranted in saying that the judicial* 
 decisions as they now stand do not sanction the application. 
 
 The question arose in Washington territory over a law fixing the 
 seat of government, and the opinion of Gushing was quoted and fol- 
 lowed. 1 Wash. Ter. 116. The case of Nevada v. Rogers, 10 Nevada 
 250, decided in 1875, did the same. An extended discussion of the- 
 subject will be found in that case, in support of the proposition that- 
 the language of the constitution should be literally followed. 
 
 The opinion concludes with the following pertinent and emphatic^ 
 language: 
 
 "Our constitution expressly provides that the enacting clause of 
 every law shall be 'The People of the State of Nevada, represented 
 in senate and assembly, do enact as follows.' This language is suscepti- 
 ble of but one interpretation. There is no doubtful meaning as to- 
 the intention. It is, in our judgment, an imperative mandate of the 
 people in their sovereign capacity to the legislature, requiring that all 
 laws to be binding upon them shall, upon their face, express the au- 
 thority by which they were enacted, and as this act comes to us with- 
 out such authority appearing upon its face, it is not a law." 
 
 The case of the State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 662, is strong in its^ 
 condemnation of the practice of treating constitutional requirements- 
 as directory. The case of Powell v. Jackson, 51 Mich. 130, is not ii* 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 67 
 
 point, as the bill was duly and seasonably amended, if we may ac- 
 cept the statement of the briefs of the counsel and the syllabus. 
 
 The trend of the weight of the authority is in our opinion against 
 the relator's contention. ^ 
 
 It is urged with some plausibility that the insertion of this provision 
 previous to the signature by the Governor is a sufficient compliance 
 with the constitution, from which we understand the claim to be made 
 that although the enacting clause was wanting when the bill came 
 to the Governor it might have been supplied by him. But it is thought 
 that this proposition is tenable only upon the assumption that the 
 constitutional provision is directory merely. The Governor has no 
 power to make laws. The legislative power is in no part vested in 
 him, being by Sec.l, Article IV, of the constitution, vested in the senate 
 and house of representatives. It is not the design of the constitu- 
 tion that he should legislate. His office is a check upon the legisla- 
 ture and he may compel a reconsideration of a bill by seasonably re- 
 turning it to the appropriate house with his objections to it, and when 
 the legislature has adjourned his neglect to sign it prevents it from 
 becoming a law, but he has not the slightest power in framing the 
 law. Indeed, it is a fundamental principal in American constitutions 
 that the executive shall not make laws. The following language 
 from the opinion in the case of state of Nevada v. Rogers, 10 Neb, 
 250, is apropos to this subject: 
 
 "Without the concurrence of the senate the people have no power 
 to enact any law. Every person at all familiar with the practice of 
 legislative bodies is aware that one of the most common methods 
 adopted to kill a bill and prevent its becoming a law, is for a mem- 
 ber to move to strike out tne enacting clause. If such motion is car- 
 ried the bill is lost. Can it be seriously contended that such a bill,, 
 with its head cut off, could thereafter by any legislative action be- 
 come a law? Certainly not. The certificates of the proper officers 
 of the senate and assembly, that such an act was passed in their re- 
 spective houses, do not, and could not impart vitality to any act 
 which, upon its face, failed to express the authoritv bv which it was 
 enacted." 
 
 This being so, the only justification for the insertion of the enact- 
 ing clause by the Governor is to be found in the assumption that it is 
 a clerical omission of an unimportant matter and it might as well be 
 held that one of the houses, or a clerk, or even the printer of the laws, 
 might make the correction, as that the Governor might do it. . 
 
68 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Some of the states have sustained laws without enacting clauses, 
 but we do not know of one that has made their validity depend upon 
 the unauthorized action of some officer or person. They have pre- 
 ferred to rest their action upon the well recognized distinction be- 
 tween mandatory and directory provisions. If the provision is manda- 
 tory that the law shall have a prescribed style and the making of laws 
 is confined to the legislative branch of the government, it cannot be 
 consistently held that omissions of essential parts Of a law may be 
 supplied and corrections made by persons without authority; and the 
 public necessities should be much greater than in the present case, 
 before such a proposition should be seriously considered. If on the 
 other hand there is warrant for treating the provision as directory, 
 a much less dangerous precedent is established. But as has been 
 shown, the weight of authority forbids it, and in our opinion it will 
 be an unfortunate day for constitutional rights when courts begin 
 the insidious process of undermining constitutions by holding un- 
 ambiguous provisions and limitations to be directory merely, to be 
 disregarded at pleasure. In the present case it will be much better 
 that the legislature shall correct its mistake, than that the courts 
 shall sanction the irregular correction. 
 
 We are therefore constrained to hold that the law under discussion 
 is void, and in the certiorari case the order is affirmed, in that of Det- 
 tenthaler the conviction is reversed and no new trial ordered. The 
 other justices concurred. 
 
 GROSVENOR v. DUFFY. 
 
 (Opinion filed September 18, 1899.) 
 
 Pure Food Law — Sale of Oleomargarine Colored to Imitate Butter — 
 Constitutionality of Act. 
 
 The sale of oleomargarine colored with a harmless substance to imi- 
 tate June butter, but which is sold and purchased as oleomargar- 
 ine, is not in violation of section 3 of Act 118 of the Public Acts 
 of 1897, being an act to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud 
 and deception in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and 
 drink. 
 
 Certiorari to review the action of the Washtenaw circuit judge in 
 refusing the appfication of Elliot O. Grosvenor, Dairy and Food Com- 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 69 
 
 missioner, for mandamus to compel John L. Duffy, justice of the 
 peace, to issue a warrant. Affirmed. 
 
 Smedley & Corwin, for relator. 
 
 John J. Speed and J. P. Lee, for respondent. 
 
 * 
 
 The relator presented to a justice of the peace a complaint in writ- 
 ing, charging that ' 'Casper Rinsey did unlawfully offer and expose for 
 sale, and did unlawfully sell and deliver to said Elliot O. Grosvenor, 
 a large quantity, to wit, one pound of oleomargarine, which was then 
 and there an article of food intended to be eaten by man, and which 
 was then and there adulterated within the meaning of act No. 193 
 of the Public Acts of Michigan for the year 1895, as amended by act 
 No. 118 of the Public Acts of Michigan for the year 1897, in this, to 
 wit: that said oleomargarine was then and there an imitation of 
 another article of food, to wit: an imitation of a rich June butter; 
 and said oleomargarine had been and was then and there colored, 
 whereby inferiority was concealed and by which means it was made 
 to appear better and of greater value than it really was, to wit, in 
 this : That it was thereby made to appear like butter of a grade which 
 was then and there of a greater value than the said oleomargarine; 
 that the said oleomargarine was labeled 'oleomargarine' and 
 stamped with the seller's name; and that the tub and wrapper which 
 contained the same bore the name and address of the manufacturer 
 and was distinctly labeled oleomargarine'." 
 
 ' 'Said complainant on his oath aforesaid, further says, that he called 
 for oleomargarine, and that the said oleomargarine was sold to him 
 as oleomargarine the same as to an ordinary customer, freely and 
 without objection, and that for this reason he did not take the steps 
 required bv section 6, act No. 154 of the Pubhc Acts of Michigan for 
 the year 1897. " 
 
 The justice refused to entertain the complaint and issue a warrant, 
 whereupon the relator applied to the circuit court for Washtenaw 
 county for the writ of mandamus to compel the justice to issue a war- 
 rant and proceed to hear the case' The circuit court refused the writ 
 and the case is brought to this court by certiorari for review. 
 
 Grant, C. J. (after stating the facts). The title of the act reads 
 "An act to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception 
 in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drink." Sec. 3, as 
 
70 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 amended by act No. 118, Public Acts 1897, so far as it applies to this 
 case, reads: 
 
 "An article shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning 
 of this act: * * * 
 
 "Fourth — If it is an imitation of, or sold under the name of another 
 article. * * * 
 
 "Sixth — If it is colored, coated, polished or powdered, whereby 
 damage or inferiority is concealed, or if by any means it is made to 
 appear better or of greater value than it really is, 
 
 "Seventh — If it contains any added substance or ingredient which 
 is poisonous or injurious to health: Provided, That nothing in this 
 act shall prevent the coloring of pure butter: And provided further, 
 That the provisions of this act shall not apply to mixtures or com- 
 pounds recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles of 
 food, if each and every package sold or offered for sale, bear the name 
 and address of the manufacturer and be distinctly labeled under its 
 own distinctive name, and in a manner so as to plainly and correctly 
 show that it is a mixture or compound, and is not in violation with 
 definition fourth and seventh of this section." 
 
 It is not claimed that the sale made by Rinsey violates subdivision 
 seven. The act charged in the complaint is neither adulteration, 
 fraud nor deception under any definition of these words to be found 
 in any dictionary. Adulteration is ' 'the act of corrupting or debasing, 
 the act of mixing something impure or spurious with something pure 
 or genuine, or an inferior article with a superior one of the same kind." 
 
 Bouv., L. D., 126. 
 Century Dictionary. 
 
 Counsel do not urge that it comes within the word "fraud" or 
 "deceit." Neither is it urged that the article is made to appear of 
 greater value than it really is. It is not claimed that the coloring 
 matter used is in the least deleterious. The law permits its use to 
 color butter. Counsel rely upon People v. Snowberger, 113 Mich. 86. 
 That case is not in point. The gravamen of the offense there was 
 that the article of food was damaged, inferior, its inferiority concealed, 
 and it was made to appear of greater value than it really was. 
 
 This brings us to the only question we need to determine, viz.: Is 
 the title to the act broad enough to include the sale complained of? 
 Would any person reading the title to the bill in the legislative jour- 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 71 
 
 nals, or elsewhere, suppose that the bill would make criminal an act 
 Tvhich in itself was entirely harmless, honest, innocent and contained 
 Tio element of wrong-doing? Or that it would change the well known 
 ■definition of a word so as to include within it things which were in 
 no sense akin to it and which could only be included in it by the most 
 arbitrary legislative enactments? Would a manufacturer of, or deal- 
 er in butter or oleomargarine, be notified by the title that the harm- 
 less coloring of either was not only to be prohibited but to be pun- 
 ished by fine or imprisonment or both? There can be but one ans- 
 wer to these questions. When the legislature attempts to change 
 <iefinitions and to make acts criminal which per se are innocent and 
 <;ontain no element of wrong, there must be something in the title to 
 ^how such purpose or object under Sec. 20, Art., 4 of the constitution. 
 The title contains not even an intimation that an entirely innocent 
 act is to be made a crime. It follows that this part of the act is void. 
 
 Bissel V. Wayne Probate Judge, 58 Mich., 237-. 
 Northwestern M'fg Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, Id., 381. 
 McKellar v. Detroit, 57 Mich., 158. 
 
 This statute is assailed as unconstitutional upon other grounds. 
 This disposal of the case renders it unnecessary to discuss them. How 
 far the legislature may go, under the police power inherent in the 
 State in prohibiting and punishing acts which in themselves are per- 
 fectly harmless, would be an interesting subject of inquiry, but as it 
 is not necessary to a disposal of the case we decline to enter upon it. 
 
 Judgment affirmed. The other justices concurred. 
 
 PEOPLE V. SKILLMAN. 
 
 (Opinion filed March 4, 1902.) 
 
 Pure Food Law — Section 5022 C. L. Construed — Action Against 
 Traveling Salesman. 
 
 A traveling salesman for a wholesale grocery firm, residing out of 
 the State, took an order in this State for pure fruit jelly and for- 
 warded the order to his employers. The order was filled with 
 imitation fruit jelly. Information was filed against the sales- 
 man under section 5022 C. L., regulating the manufacture and 
 sale of imitation fruit jellies. Held, That respondent was not 
 guilty of violating the terms of the statute. 
 
72 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Error to the circuit court for Muskegon County. Fred. J. Russell, 
 judge. 
 
 Appeal of John Skillman from a conviction under the pure food 
 law. New trial ordered. 
 
 Chas. B. Cross, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. 
 
 Elliot O. Grosvenor and Smedley & Corwin, for respondent. 
 
 Moore, J. : An information was filed against the respondent which, 
 omitting the formal parts, reads as follows: "That one John Skill- 
 man heretofore, to wit; on the sixteenth day of September, A. D. 1901, 
 at the city of Muskegon, in the county of Muskegon aforesaid, did 
 unlawfully offer for sale and did sell to Albert Towle a large quantity, 
 to wit : a certain compound under the name of Quince Jelly which was 
 then and there adulterated within the meaning of the act No. 193 of 
 the Public Acts of the State of Michigan of the year 1895, as amended 
 by act No. 118 of the Public Acts of the State of Michigan of the year 
 1897, as amended by act No. 117 of the Public Acts of the State of 
 Michigan of the year 1899, in this to wit: That said compound was 
 then and there made and composed in part of glucose, starch and other 
 substances, and was then and there colored in imitation of fruit jelly 
 contrary to the form of the statute." 
 
 After the testimony was all in, a motion was made asking the judge, 
 for various reasons, to direct a verdict in favor of respondent. This 
 motion was overruled. The case was submitted to the jury which 
 returned a verdict of guilty. 
 
 A great many errors are assigned. We think some of them which 
 we shall discuss are well taken, but as the case if ever tried again, 
 will not present the same questions now presented by counsel we deem 
 it unnecessary to pass upon all the questions argued by them in the 
 briefs. 
 
 To sustain the case of the people testimony in substance as follows 
 was introduced: It was shown the respondent had for some years 
 been a traveling salesman in the employ of Reid, Murdock & Com- 
 pany of Chicago, that he solicited an order from Mr. Towle, a grocer 
 in Muskegon, that Mr. Towle gave him an order for a case of assorted 
 pure fruit jelly. Mr. Skillman did not have the goods with him, but 
 reduced the order to writing in the presence of Mr. Towle at his store, 
 and forwarded it to the house in Chicago, It is as follows: 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 7S 
 
 ''Reid, Murdock & Co., Chicago, 
 Sept. 12, 1901. 
 
 Name: Albert Towle. 
 
 Town : Muskegon. 
 
 State: Michigan. 
 
 Ship by Barry Line. 
 
 Salesman, Skillman. 
 
 1 c P. F. Jelly Med. Asst 100 
 
 1 c P. F. Jelly Med. Currant ". • . • lOO 
 
 60 days." 
 
 ''1 c P. F. Jelly Med. Asst." was explained to mean one case pure 
 fruit jelly medium size assorted glasses. Mr. Towle testified Mr. 
 Skillman claimed it was pure fruit jelly for which he took the order, 
 and that was what he intended to buy. It was not shown that re- 
 spondent had anything further to do with the transaction than as 
 above stated. Later a case of goods was received from Reid, Mur- 
 dock & Company and testimony was given tending to show that a 
 tumbler of this jelly was sold to Mr. Bennett, inspector of the Dairy 
 and Food Department of Michigan, and by him forwarded to the 
 State Analyst, where it is claimed upon analysis it was shown to be 
 a mixture of fruit juice, glucose, starch and coloring matter. L"^pon the 
 cross examination of Mr. Towle the following occurred: 
 
 "Q. Did you give Mr. Skillman more than one order for fruit 
 jelly about this time? A. Well, he had two or three orders, I think, 
 two at least. 
 
 "Q. Two orders? A. One of them might have been ordered by 
 mail. 
 
 "Q. Now you received two consignments of fruit jelly from the 
 orders you had given to Mr. Skillman? A. I think so, yes, sir. 
 
 "Q. Upon which one of these orders did you receive this particular 
 tumbler of jelly that you afterwards sold to Mr. Bennett? A. I 
 couldn't say. The one that he bought was out of that order I think. 
 (Witness pointing to order exhibited.) " 
 
 The defense claimed that the label "pure fruit jelly" placed upon 
 the tumbler analyzed was put there by mistake. It was their claim 
 that Reid, Murdock & Company dealt in two kinds of jelly, those 
 made out of pure fruit and those made in imitation of pure fruit, and 
 that when the imitation was sold in Michigan and certain other states 
 their instructions were to label them ''imitation," and that these 
 instructions were furnished in writing to their agents, including the 
 respondent, and they offered testimony tending to prove this claim. 
 10 
 
74 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 The written instructions were also offered in evidence, but with the 
 testimony offered were excluded by the court. 
 
 Among other requests offered by the respondent was the following: 
 
 "Under the undisputed evidence in this case there is nothing to 
 «how that the respondent offered to sell any jelly in violation of any 
 statute of this State, but, on the contrary, it is shown that respond- 
 ent offered to sell strictly pure fruit jelly and sent such an order to 
 Reid, Murdock & Company of Chicago, Illinois, and the charge in the 
 information for selling and offering to sell adulterated jelly is not 
 sustained by the evidence, and your verdict should be not guilty." 
 
 The judge refused to give this request, but charged the jury, ''It 
 is recognized by the legislators and is a matter of common knowledge 
 that many of the wholesalers that are doing business in Michigan are 
 not residents of this State, so the legislature saw fit to make a law 
 where a man solicited the sale of pure jellies, took an order for the 
 «ale of pure jellies, and in response to that order and offer, a different 
 class of goods was furnished, that the party should be guilty of violat- 
 ing this particular law. In other words, instead of that order or offer 
 ^nd the furnishing of goods delivered to the party by a party who might 
 be a non-resident of the State, that it should relate to the man who 
 actually made the offer, the man who actually took the order for the 
 furnishing of this particular article. The people claim that this is 
 the matter in which this defendant here is liable." 
 
 This statement of the law is sought to be justified by People v. 
 Snowber^er, 113 Mich. 86, and People v. Grocer Co., 118 Mich. 604, 
 71 N. W. 497, 67 Am. St. Rep. 449, 77 N. W. 315. A reference to 
 these case will show that the respondent in ea6h of them admitted 
 making the sale of the goods. In this case the respondent denies 
 that he sold any goods coming within the provisions of the statute. 
 Giving the only interpretation to the testimony as it appears in the 
 record which can be fairly given to it shows Mr. Towle was solicited 
 to give an order for pure fruit jelly. He gave such an order. It was 
 reduced to writing and in the writing the jelly was described as pure 
 fruit jelly. As before stated the only connection of the respondent 
 with the transaction as shown by the record is the taking of an order 
 for an article not within the terms of the statute and forwarding it. 
 This does not constitute an offense. It might as well be urged that 
 if a traveling salesman takes an order for Michigan beet sugar and 
 forwards a written order for such sugar, and if the house, instead of 
 iilling the order as written, sends glucose with a label upon the pack- 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 75 
 
 :age containing it calling it Michigan beet sugar the salesman would 
 be guilty of an offense. This we do not understand to be the law. 
 Upon the case as made the circuit judge should have directed a ver- 
 dict of not guilty. People v. Howard, 50 Mich. 242, 15 N. W., 101. 
 
 The verdict is set aside and a new trial ordered. 
 
 Long, J., did not sit# The other justices concurred. 
 
 THE PEOPLE V. MORSE. 
 
 (Opinion filed June 3, 1902.) 
 
 Pure Food Law — Sales by Agents — Criminal Responsibility for Acts 
 
 of Principal. 
 
 1. A traveling salesman who in good faith takes an order for "pure 
 pepper," which is filled by his principal with impure pepper, is 
 not guilty of a violation of Public Acts 1895, No. 193, forbidding 
 the sale of impure foods. 
 
 2. Public Acts 1895, No. 193 (Pure Food Laws) Sec. 17, providing 
 that the taking of an order for future delivery of any of the ar- 
 ticles covered by the ' 'act shall be deemed a sale, within the mean- 
 ing of the act," does not make an agent absolutely responsible 
 for the acts of his principal in filling the orders taken by such 
 agent, and an order by the agent which is filled by the principal 
 as an entirety may be, under the act, a sale of impure food, as 
 to the principal, and yet not such as to the agentr 
 
 Error to circuit court, Muskegon county; Fred J. Russell, judge. , 
 
 John W. Morse was convicted of a violation of the pure food law, 
 and he brings error. Reversed. 
 
 Underwood & Umlor, for appellant. 
 
 Chas. B. Cross, Prosecuting Attorney, and George S. Lovelace, 
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for the People. 
 
 Hooker, J.: The brief filed on behalf of the people states that the 
 -case is similar to that of The People v. Skillman, 8 Detroit Legal 
 News, 1090, ^9 N. W. 330, and in effect concedes that the case must 
 be reversed if we adhere to our former decision. 
 
 The defendant took an order for some pepper, as and for pure pep- 
 per, to be shipped to a dealer in Muskegon, by defendant's principal, 
 ii wholesaler in Chicago. The pepper when sent was not pure. 
 
76 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 It is insisted that the Skillman case is at variance with the weight 
 of authority elsewhere, and contrary to our own cases, in which it 
 is said that we have held that a guilty intent on the part of a vendor, 
 is not essential to an offense, under the pure food law (Publig Acts 
 1895, No. 193). It is further said that in the decision in thie Skill- 
 man case, section seventeen of the act must have been overlooked 
 or considered unconstitutional. 
 
 The transaction in which the order was taken did not involve an 
 immediate delivery of pepper, then and there present. It is not shown 
 that the sample, if there was one, was the same as the pepper subse- 
 quently sent, or that it was in the least impure. If it be conceded 
 that the agent acted in good faith, and we understand that it is not 
 questioned, he took an order for pure goods, and in doing that cer- 
 tainly committed no offense. It is now urged that the exigencies 
 of the enforcement of this law are such, that we should hold that this 
 innocent and lawful action, inay be made a crime by the subsequent 
 act of the principal, either intentional or inadvertent, in departing 
 from, instead of performing the contract which his agent had innocent- 
 ly made. We think this is not so, and we are also of the opinion that 
 this does not necessarily do violence to section seventeen. This trans- 
 action, as an entirety, may have been a sale of impure pepper under 
 the statute as to the principal, and not as to the agent. If the order 
 had been taken, with knowledge on the part of the agent of a practice- 
 to send impure pepper on such orders, a different question would be 
 presented. 
 
 The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered. 
 
 Long, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred. 
 
 PEOPLE V. ROTTER. 
 
 (Opinion filed June 24, 1902.) 
 
 Food — Oleomargarine Act — Constitutional Law — Statutes — Title — 
 
 Object. 
 
 1. Public Acts 1901, No. 22, entitled "An act to prevent deception 
 in the manufacture and sale of imitation butter," which in addi- 
 tion to forbidding sale of imitation butter, prohibits sales of col- 
 ored oleomargarine, is not, on that account, open to the objection 
 that the object is not expressed in the title, as required by Const. 
 Art. 4, Sec. 20. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 77 
 
 2. The act is not in contravention of the fourteenth amendment 
 
 of the federal constitution. 
 S. The act is a valid exercise of the police power. 
 
 Error to circuit court, Emmet county; Frank Shepard, judge. 
 
 George W. Rotter was convicted of selling colored oleomargarine, 
 and brings error. Affirmed. 
 
 Smedley & Corwin, Sears, Meagher & Whitney (James F. Meagher 
 and Kay Wood, of counsel), for appellant. 
 
 Horace M. Oren, Attorney General, and Matthew F. Guinon, 
 Prosecuting Attorney for the People. 
 
 Hooker, C. J.: At its last session, the legislature passed an act 
 under the title, ' 'An act to prevent deception in the manufacture and 
 sale of imitation butter." Public Acts 1901, No. 22. 
 
 Section 1 of said act provides that: 
 
 "No person, by himself or his agents or servants, shall render or 
 manufacture, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or have in his pos- 
 session with intent to sell, any article, product or compound made 
 wholly or in part out of any fat, oil or oleaginous substance or com- 
 pound thereof, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from 
 the same, which shall be in imitation of yellow butter produced from 
 pure unadulterated milk or cream of the same : Provided, That noth- 
 ing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the manufacture or sale 
 of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form, and in such man- 
 ner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free from color- 
 ation or ingredient that causes it to look like butter." 
 
 Section 2 prescribes a penalty for the violation of the act. 
 
 The defendant was a grocer in Emmet county, and is shown to 
 have sold a package of oleomargarine, which by an analysis was prov- 
 en to have contained artificial coloring matter, and that said oleo- 
 margarine was not made wholly from unadulterated milk or cream 
 from the same, and that it was made in imitation of yellow butter, 
 produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same. The court 
 was asked to direct a verdict of not guilty upon the grounds: 
 
 1st. That the object of the act was not expressed in the title, as 
 required by section 20 of article 4 of the constitution of this State; 
 
 2d. That the act violates the fourteenth amendment of the con- 
 stitution of the United States, and article 6, section 32, of the con- 
 stitution of this State: 
 
78 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 3d. That it was not within the pohce power of the State. 
 
 The evidence conclusively shows that no deception was used im 
 selling the oleomargarine, and there is nothing to indicate that there 
 was any harmful ingredient therein, but that, on the contrary there 
 was not such ingredient. The defendant was convicted, and the- 
 case is here on exceptions before sentence. 
 
 It is contended that the title to the act indicates that the act was- 
 designed to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale of imita- 
 tion butter, while the act attempts to go further and prevent all sales^ 
 of such colored oleomargarine. 
 
 If oleomargarine colored yellow, closely resembles yellow butter,, 
 made from milk or cream, it cannot reasonably be said not to resemble 
 or imitate yellow butter. Butter is a well known commodity. From 
 time immemorial it has had but one origin, viz. : from the churning 
 of milk or cream. Whatever may be said of the possibility of mak- 
 ing a' product from other compounds than milk or cream that shall 
 closely resemble or be chemically identical with butter, the world 
 has but one understanding of what is meant by the word "butter," 
 and we must assume that such is the sense in which our legislature 
 used the term. Compiled laws, Sec. 50. Sub. 1. 
 
 A fair inference from this statute is that the legislature undertook 
 to prevent deception, by preventing the sale of any yellow oleomar- 
 garine, and it undertook to accomplish this by the most effective 
 means, viz.: by prohibiting the coloring of oleomargarine yellow,, 
 thereby avoiding the embarrassment which would otherwise arise 
 from the necessity of proving in each case, that deceit was used in 
 selling it, as and for butter. We think this is fairly within the title,, 
 whatever must be said of the other points raised. We are referred 
 to the case of N. W. Mfg. Co. v. Chambers, 58 Mich. 381, 25 N. W. 
 372, 55 Am. Rep. 693, as conclusive upon this question, in which 
 case it is said that "all that could be done under such a title would 
 be to prohibit and prevent sale of such articles under false pretenses." 
 We are of the opinion that this language is too restrictive, and that 
 it is at variance with the settled doctrine in this State, that any pro- 
 vision, naturally calculated to accomplish the object expressed in. 
 the title may be included in the act. 
 
 See: 
 
 Soukup V. Van Dyke, 109 Mich. 681. 
 
 People V. Worden Grocer Co., 118 Mich. 607. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 79- 
 
 The case cited was rightly disposed of upon another ground, and 
 it is possible that the language above quoted should be considered 
 a dictum. Moreover the cases are distinguishable for whereas, that 
 act attempted to prevent all sales of imitation butter, and was there- 
 fore perhaps inconsistent with the title, which apparently contem- 
 plated lawful sales, the statute under consideration in the present 
 case, does not prohibit sales of oleomargarine, which is not tainted 
 M'ith the prohibited ingredients. 
 
 It is unnecessary to discuss the other points at length for the reason 
 that the uniform trend of judicial opinion is that such laws are valid. 
 
 State V. Meyers, 42 W. Va. 825; 35 L. R. A. 844. 
 
 New Hampshire v. Marshall, I. L. R. A. 51. 
 
 Powell V. Penna, 127 U. S. 678. 
 
 People V. Armsberg, 105 N. Y. 113. 
 
 Butler V. Chambers, 36 Minn. 69. 
 
 People V. Worden Grocer Co., 118 Mich. 604. 
 
 People V. Armsberg, 105 N. Y. 123. 
 
 State V. Crescent Creamery Co., 86 N. W. 107. 
 
 State V. Ball, 46 Atl. Rep. 50. 
 
 Commonwealth v. Van Dyke, 13 Pa. Sup. Ct. Rep. 484. 
 
 Commonwealth v. McCann, 14 Pa. Sup. Ct. Rep. 221. 
 
 Armour Packing Co. v. Snyder, 84 Fed. Rep. 136. 
 
 Cap. City Dairy Co. v. State, 22 Sup, Ct. Rep. 120. 
 
 Wright V. State, 41 Atl. Rep. 795. 
 
 Wq are of the opinion that the legislature had the power to pass 
 this law, and its wisdom of policy is not for our consideration. 
 
 The judgment is affirmed and the court directed to sentence the 
 defendant. 
 
 Long, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred. 
 
 PEOPLE V. PHILLIPS. 
 
 (Opinion filed Sept. 17. 1902.) 
 
 Food — Adulteration — Statutes — Oleomargarine — Yellow Butter. 
 
 The phrase "yellow butter," is used in Act No. 22, Acts 1901,. 
 makmg it an offense to sell or offer for sale oleomargarine colored 
 in imitation of "yellow butter" made from pure milk or cream, 
 of the same, means any butter produced from pure milk or cream, 
 thereof having a "perceptible shade" of yellow. 
 
so STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Error to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; John W. Adams, Judge. 
 
 John W. PhiUips was convicted of seUing oleomargarine, in viola- 
 tion of Act No. 22, Acts 1901, and he brings error. Affirmed. 
 
 Frank E. Knappen and E. M. Irish, for appellant. 
 
 Sheridan F. Master, Prosecuting Attorney, and Dallas Boudeman, 
 for the people. • 
 
 Moore, J. The respondent was convicted of having on hand with 
 intent to sell, and offering for sale oleomargarine, colored in imita- 
 tion of yellow butter, contrary to the provisions of Act No. 22 of the 
 legislature, passed at the session of 1901. 
 
 It is claimed by respondent this law is unconstitutional and is an 
 invalid law. That question was decided in the very recent case of 
 People V. Rotter, against the contention of respondent, and need 
 not be discussed here. It is urged as a matter of defense, and we 
 quote from the brief of counsel, ' 'that the statute is only aimed against 
 the imitation of a substance which the legislature recognizes as yellow 
 butter, and 
 
 1. The court should take judicial notice that all butter with a trace 
 of yellow in it is not the yellow butter of commerce. 
 
 2. That if this is not true as a proposition of judicial notice, 
 and the court cannot know it, then the respondent should have been 
 allowed to prove, if he could, that there was such a usage of commerce. 
 
 3. That the statute is vague and indefinite in not defining the 
 elements of the statutory crime it attempts to carve out of an act 
 innocent per se, in that it gives no standard for determining what the 
 color of yellow butter is that is not to be imitated. " 
 
 The trial judge charged the jury upon that branch of the case as 
 follows. 
 
 "It is not necessary in this case for the people to bave proved that 
 the respondent himself colored the oleomargarine if you find beyond 
 a reasonable doubt that it was colored. The offense is just as com- 
 plete, so far as this is concerned, if the respondent purchased oleomar- 
 garine colored, as above indicated. The offense as above stated con- 
 sists of having the oleomargarine colored as before indicated, in his 
 possession, with intent to sell the same, or in exposing it for sale; and 
 if the respondent sold it in the same condition as he bought it, there 
 would be no defense in this case. The respondent, gentlemen of the 
 jury, is not charged in this information with selling this article; and 
 if you find beyond a reasonable doubt he sold it as claimed by the peo- 
 ple in the testimony offered, you may consider this fact on the ques- 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. SI 
 
 tion of whether respondent had or did not have the article in his pos- 
 session for the purpose of selling it. And you must not consider it 
 . for any other purpose. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that 
 respondent did sell the article mentioned in the information to the 
 parties claimed by the people, that would satisfy the statute upon 
 the question of intent to sell. It is not necessary in this case to entitle 
 the people to a conviction, that the oleomargarine should have been 
 colored to represent any particular kind of yellow butter. That is, 
 such yellow butter as the statute mentions, and as I have indicated 
 to you the statute mentions. If the coloring was put into it, and 
 by using such coloring the oleomargarine was in imitation of light 
 yellow butter, such as the statute mentions, that is, yellow butter 
 produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream from the same, the 
 offense is committed just the same, as if it had been colored to repre- 
 sent darker yellow butter. If you find it to have been oleomargarine 
 and was colored in such a manner as to be in imitation of any kind 
 of yeUow butter, that would satisfy the statute upon the requirement 
 of the question of color. Yellow butter I define to be any butter 
 produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream of the same having 
 a yellow color. 
 
 ''It is necessary in order for the jury to convict the respondent, 
 for you to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the article in the 
 package sold was colored in imitation of yellow butter produced from 
 pure, unadulterated milk or cream of the same. If you find beyond a 
 reasonable doubt under the testimony in this case that there was some 
 coloring matter in this article, still if you find that there was not enough 
 coloring matter in this article to cause it to look like yellow butter 
 having a perceptible shade of yellow, said butter having been produced 
 from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, then you must ac- 
 quit. But if you find beyond a reasonable doubt there was coloring 
 matter in said], article and sufficient coloring matter m said article 
 and sufficient coloring matter therein to make it look like yellow but- 
 ter, having any perceptible shade of yellow, said butter having been 
 made from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, that would 
 be sufficient so far as the requirement of the statute upon the ques- 
 tion of coloration is concerned." 
 
 We think this was a proper construction of the language used in the 
 statute. 
 
 The conviction is affirmed and the case remanded for further pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Long, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred. 
 11 
 
82 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 PEOPLE V. JENNINGS. 
 
 (Opinion filed April 7, 1903.) 
 
 Adulteration of Food — Omission of Ingredients — Coloring Matter — 
 Remarks of Court. 
 
 1. There not having been incorporated in the pure food law of 1895 
 
 (Public Acts of 1895, p. 358, No. 193), any specific formula for 
 the manufacture of lemon extract, it is proper to resort to the 
 United States Pharmacopoeia formula to determine of what 
 lemon extract consists. 
 
 2. The pure food law of 1895 (Public Acts 1895, p. 358, No. 193), 
 is not intended to prevent manufacturers of articles of food from 
 improving the same, so long as no infringement of the law or 
 spirit of the act defining adulteration takes place. 
 
 3. The provisions of Comp. Laws, Sec. 5012, that an article shall, 
 be deemed adulterated, ''second, if any inferior or cheaper sub- 
 stance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part 
 for it; third, if any valuable or necessary constituent or ingredi- 
 ent has been wholly or in part abstracted from it" — should be 
 read together, and the provision first recited construed as prohibit- 
 ing the substitution for an essential ingredient of any cheaper 
 or inferior substances. 
 
 4. Comp. Laws, Sec. 5012, declaring that an article shaU be deemed 
 adulterated, "sixth, if it is colored * * * whereby damage 
 or inferiority is concealed, or if by any means it is made to appear 
 better or of greater value than it really is," does not preclude 
 the use of coloring matter not injurious to health in any way. 
 
 5. It is improper for the court to refer to expert _ testimony as- 
 "boughten testimony." 
 
 Exceptions from Circuit Court, Muskegon County; Fred J. Russell,. 
 Judge. 
 
 Charles W. Jennings was convicted of violating the pure food law^ 
 and brings exceptions. Reversed. 
 
 Charles A. Blair, Attorney General, and Charles B. Cross, Prosecut- 
 ing Attorney. (Cross, Lovelace and Ross, of counsel), for the People. 
 Knappen, Kleinhans & Knappen and L. N. Keating, for defendant.^ 
 
 Montgomery, J. This is a prosecution under the Pure Food Law,, 
 so called. The defendant was convicted under an information charg- 
 ing him with selling a compound as a lemon extract which was adul- 
 terated within the meaning of Act No. 193., P. A. 1895, and was a 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 83 
 
 compound in imitation of extract of lemon. The respondent was 
 cohvicted and brings the case up on exceptions before sentence. 
 
 The evidence on the trial introduced by the defendant tended to 
 show that lemon oil contains from three to ten per cent citral, so- 
 called, and upwards of ninety per cent of so-called turpenes; that 
 these turpenes represent the oil property; that they are in reality 
 the oil itself freed from the citral; that citral is the principal flavor- 
 ing and odor-bearing property of lemon oil; that the tendency of 
 turpenes in the oil of lemon is to deteriorate or become rancid by long 
 standing, and that because of this the extract or spirits of lemon in 
 which turpenes appear in usual quantities become turpentiney, both 
 in smell and taste, and that for this reason it is undesirable to have tur- 
 penes present; that the turpenes have a biting taste, easily develop- 
 ing a turpentine taste, not the true flavor of the lemon fruit. There 
 was also testimony tending to show that this fact created a demand 
 for turpeneless oils and that turpeneless lemon oils had been manu- 
 factured and sold commercially for a considerable time. 
 
 On the part of the prosecution the testimony of the chemist of*the 
 Pure Food Department was to the effect that taking as a standard 
 of extract of lemon the spirits of lemon as defined by the United States 
 Pharmacopoeia formula that the extract produced by the respondent 
 showed no lemon oil present. It further appears that spirits of lemon 
 made according to the pharmacopoeia formula would contain from 
 25-100 to 35-100 of one per cent of citral. It also appeared that 30" 
 per cent of alcohol appeared in the product made by respondent, and 
 that according to the pharmacopoeia formula 80 per cent was used, 
 and that it cost less to make the extract using but 30 per cent of alco- 
 hol than if 80 per cent was used. It was also shown that a trace of 
 coal tar dye was found in the extract made by respondent, but it was 
 conceded that there was nothing whatever injurious in the extract 
 as prepared by Mr. Jennings. The extract sold by respondent was 
 made by what is known as the shaking out process, the purpose being 
 to make an extract that contains no oil and as little alcohol as possible, 
 a product that simply contains the flavoring properties of the lemon 
 oil without the turpenes. This system has been employed by Mr. 
 Jennings and by other manufacturers for the past three years; and 
 it is claimed that all the elements and properties of lemon oil remained 
 except the turpenes, and the testimony tended to show that the com- 
 plete flavoring qualities are extracted by this process. 
 
84 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 The circuit judge charged the jury as follows: 
 
 "In 1895 the Legislature of this State thought it wise to pass a 
 law relative to the adulterations of food and food products. Perhaps 
 there may have been some amendments since that time, but that was 
 the foundation of the law. That law covers lemon extract as it cov- 
 ers all other products that are sold on the market. It seems at the 
 time the law was passed and since that time there hasn't been — there 
 isn't incorporated within that law any special formula for the manu- 
 facture of lemon extract. Now, we can hardly say, gentlemen of 
 the jury, that at the time of the passage of that law that the legisla- 
 ture didn't have some recognized and defined standard by which these 
 essences or extracts should be governed or controlled. I think it 
 would be hardly fair to the legislature to claim that there wasn't a 
 standard they had in their mind at that time, and for the purposes 
 of this case I will instruct you gentlemen, that at that time and at 
 this time this standard that appears here in the United States Pharm- 
 acopoeia is the standard recognized by the legislators of this State 
 and the one to which — the one that is in force so far as it applies to 
 the Pure Food Law of this State with reference to that particular 
 product. And if this lemon extract is manufactured in conflict with 
 that formula as I shall hereafter call your attention to it, and vou 
 should find from the evidence, why it would be your duty to convict 
 the defendant here. 
 
 "By that formula it appears that it is necessary to 'have five per 
 cent of lemons oil in the lemon extract and that lemon oil shall be cut 
 by a sufficient quantity of alcohol to perform that act. Of course, 
 you know that that means in common parlance it should dissolve the 
 oil. In addition to that, as the evidence tends to show in this case, 
 after those things are put together, the fluid, whatever it might be, 
 would be nearly the color of water. As coloring there may be or should 
 be flve per cent of lemon rind, and those ingredients when added to- 
 gether would be lemon extract, and that, gentlemen, will be the stand- 
 ard as appHed to the Pure Food Law of this State. Now, gentlemen, 
 I don't mean by that statement that lemon extract cannot be manu- 
 factured by any other process except by that to which I have called 
 your attention. I don't mean that. It is the claim of the defendant 
 here that he has discovered a process by which be can manufacture 
 lemon extract containing all of the qualities that lemon extract manu- 
 factured according to that formula would possess and not have en- 
 tirely all of the ingredients in the flrst instance that are provided in 
 the formula. And as I view this case, gentlemen, that is one of the 
 important propositions in connection with this case — that, and the 
 question of coloring — in the judgment of the court is the case, and that 
 all of the testimony in the case here revolves itself about those two 
 propositions. 
 
 "It is the claim of the defendant, as I say, he has discovered a pro- 
 cess by which he can produce in this lemon extract all the qualities 
 that would be produced by adding alcohol and lemon oil together, 
 and that manufacturing it by that means he produces it chemically 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 85 
 
 by taking a larger quantity of lemon oil and extracting certain parts 
 of it. Now, gentlemen, if you find and are satisfied by the evidence 
 in this case that after this lemon extract was manufactured as de- 
 fendant here claims he did manufacture it possesses all the qualities 
 in strength and otherwise that it would possess if manufactured ac- 
 cording to this formula, he is not guilty under this law. That is, 
 he is not guilty of manufacturing an impure article, unless there are 
 certain other articles that enter into the case to which I call your 
 attention. ■ As I say, in the first instance, it is claimed that accord- 
 ing to the formula it should be alcohol and five per cent of lemon oil. 
 Now if by some other process he can manufacture from the lemon 
 oil and alcohol a product that would contain all of the elements that 
 these two elements would contain if so mixed, he would not be guilty 
 so far that would be lemon extract except the color of it. 
 
 ' 'It is conceded here by all parties in interest, I think, that the only 
 object of the lemon peefis to produce coloring. But there is another 
 element to which the prosecuting attorney has called our attention. 
 The evidence tends to show, gentlemen, that if this product is pro- 
 duced as claimed here on the part of the defendant, that after pro- 
 duction by this process that the product would be nearly white. As 
 I say, if it contained all of the elements of lemon extract, 1 don't think 
 he would be guilty under this law, and if you are so satisfied, of course, 
 at that point it would be your duty to find a verdict of not guilty un- 
 less there is some other matter in which he has violated this law. 
 
 "There is another provision of this Pure Food Law that provides 
 that ingredients shall not be colored. In this case it appears that 
 after this fluid substance is produced which he claims is just the same 
 as produced under this formula, that he desires to change it to a lem- 
 on color. In other Avcfrds, he puts in an ingredient which he claims 
 would produce the same effect as this lemon rind. Wha-t is the object, 
 gentlemen, or what was the object of Mr. Jennings adding this color? 
 If the object was by any means to make it appear better or of greater 
 value than it really is; if that was the object in adding that product 
 of course it is your duty without any question to find this defendant 
 guilty, because he hadn't any right to add that kind of a product or 
 any other kind of a product to this fluid which he had produced and 
 sell it for lemon extract, because that is a direct violation of one of 
 the provisions of this Pure Food Law." 
 
 We think this charge presents fairly three questions for consider- 
 ation: First, whether the pharmacopoeia formula is to be con- 
 sidered as defining lemon extract; second, if so, whether an omission 
 of ingredients not essential to its purposes as a food product is a viola- 
 tion of the statute; third, whether the instruction relative to the addi- 
 tion of coloring matter should be sustained. 
 
 The statute defining what shall be deemed adulteration, so far as 
 it relates to this case, declares that an article shall be deemed adul- 
 terated when: "First, if any substance or substances have been 
 
86 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 mixed with it, so as to lower' or depreciate or injuriously affect its 
 quality, strength or purity; second, if any inferior or cheaper sub- 
 stance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for it; 
 third, if any valuable or necessary constituent or ingredient has been 
 wholly or in part abstracted from it; fourth, if it is an imitation of, 
 or is sold under the name of another article; * * * sixth, if it 
 is colored, coated, polished or powdered whereby damage or inferiority 
 is concealed, or if by any means it is made to appear better or of great- 
 er value than it really is; seventh, if it contains any added substance 
 or ingredient which is poisonous or injurious to health." Compiled 
 Laws, Sec. 5012. 
 
 We are agreed with the circuit judge that in referring to articles 
 of food and to protect the users thereof the legislature must have had 
 in view some standard, and as lemon essence or lemon extract had 
 therefore acquired a well-defined meaning we incline to the view that 
 it is proper to resort to the pharmacopoeia formula for the purpose 
 of determining what lemon extract consists of. Does it follow from 
 this that the legislature intended to prohibit improvement in the 
 manufacture of lemon extract? If a means should be discovered 
 by which a larger percentage of the flavoring quantity of the lemon 
 might be extracted would it be an infraction of this law that the manu- 
 facturer should use such larger proportion of the essential ingred- 
 ient of the lemon extract? We think not. We think it is open to 
 manufacturers to improve a common article of food so long as no in- 
 fringement of the law or spirit of the act defining what shall be deemed 
 adulteraiton takes place. According to the proofs offered by the 
 defendant it is very clear in the present case no substance or sub- 
 stances have been mixed with this extract so as to lower or depre- 
 ciate or injuriously affect its quality, strength or purity. 
 
 As to the second condition which amounts to adulteration the case 
 is not so clear. This provides that if any inferior or cheaper sub- 
 stance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for it, 
 that it shall amount to adulteration. We think, however, this pro- 
 vision should be read in connection with the succeeding one, to-wit: 
 ''If any valuable or necessary constituent or ingredient has been 
 wholly or in part abstracted from it." So construed the provision 
 prohibiting the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance, 
 wholly or in part, for it means the substitution for an essential in- 
 gredient of such cheaper or inferior substance. Now if it be a fact, 
 as the testimony on the part of the respondent tends to show, that 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 87 
 
 it is a positive advantage to exclude the turpene wholly from the 
 extract and to lessen the quantity of alcohol used, then the essential 
 ingredients of lemon extract have not had substituted for them any- 
 thing inferior or cheaper. We are aware that this view of the law 
 may make it more difficult to establish the individual case, but as 
 -the statute is a penal statute it should receive a strict construction. 
 
 It follows from the views above expressed that the instruction of 
 the learned circuit judge was erroneous inasmuch as the jury were 
 told in effect that if any ingredient of lemon essence as defined by 
 the pharmacopoeia was wanting in this extract sold by the respond- 
 ent that there should be a conviction. We think the instruction 
 should have been that if the lemon extract sold by respondent con- 
 tained all the ingredients and in quantities such as prescribed by the 
 pharmacopoeia which are adapted to use as food, and that nothing 
 was eliminated except such ingredients as could be dispensed with 
 without injury to the product as a food product there was no viola- 
 tion of the statute. 
 
 The only other provision of the statute involved is the sixth, which 
 in effect prohibits coloring the article produced whereby damage or 
 inferiority is concealed. The instruction upon this branch of the law 
 was also erroneous if we are correct in our view of the main ques- 
 tion. The elimination of non-essential ingredients from the extract 
 <3ertainly does not show damage or inferiority, and as the conceded 
 facts are that the coloring matter employed was not injurious to health 
 in any way this provision has no application. 
 
 The other questions discussed do not require special mention. It 
 may be noted in passing that the circuit judge in referring to the tes- 
 timony of expert witnesses spoke of it as boughten testimony. We 
 think this expression was unfortunate. While it is proper for the 
 jury to take into account the fact that expert witnesses are employed 
 ^t an extra compensation paid them, the implication that the extra 
 compensation necessarily amounts to a purchase of their testimony 
 is hardly warranted; while the jury may consider this fact as bear- 
 ing on their credibility, it is not proper that the court should intimate 
 a,n opinion of that character. 
 
 The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered. 
 
 The other Justices concurred. 
 
STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 BENNETT v. CARR. 
 
 • (Opinion filed July 14, 1903.) 
 
 Pure Food Law, Act 22, P. A., 1901, Construed— Sale of Yellow 
 Oleomargarine. 
 
 Act No. 22 of the Public Acts of 1901 prohibiting the sale of oleo- 
 margarine except where it is "free from coloration or ingredient ihat 
 causes it to look like butter," does not prohibit the sale of oleomar- 
 garine whose color is natural, genuine, and not an imitation, and the 
 ingredients themselves naturally produce the color. 
 
 The term "ingredient," used in Act 22, PubHc Acts of 1901, does 
 not refer to the ingredients essential to produce the article as de- 
 fined by the legislature, but to an ingredient used to 'produce color. 
 
 Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Muskegon county, Fred J, Rus- 
 sell, Judge, to review an order denying the petition of John R. Bennett 
 for mandamus to compel John M. Carr to issue a warrant. Order 
 affirmed. 
 
 Charles A. Blair, Attorney General, and Cross, Lovelace and Ross,^ 
 for relator and appellant. 
 
 Smith, Nims, Hoyt and Erwin for defendant and appellee. 
 
 Grant, J. : Relator is the inspector of the State Food and Dairy 
 Department. On the 24th day of February, 1903, he made complaint 
 before the defendant, a justice of the peace of the county of Muske- 
 gon, charging one Martin Aamondt with having sold one pound of 
 oleomargarine contrary to act No. 22 of the PubHc Acts of 1901. The 
 respondent refused to entertain the complaint and issue warrant, 
 on the ground that the complaint stated no offense under the pro- 
 visions of said act, and that said act is unconstitutional and void. 
 Relator thereupon applied to the circuit court for the county of Mus- 
 kegon for the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to issue 
 said warrant, and proceed with the examination. The circuit court 
 sustained the action of the respondent, and the case is now before 
 us for review upon certiorari. 
 
 The statute in question reads as follows: 
 
 "Section 1. No person, by himself or his agents, or servants, shaE 
 render or manufacture, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or have in 
 his possession with intent to sell, any article, product or compound 
 made wholly or in part out of any fat, oil, or oleaginous substance 
 or compound thereof, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream 
 from the same, which shall be in imitation of yellow butter produced 
 from pure unadulterated milk or cream of the same: Provided, That 
 nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the manufacture 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 89 
 
 or sale of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form, and in such 
 manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free from col- 
 oration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter." The com- 
 plaint charges Mr. Aamondt with unlawfully selling one pound of oleo- 
 margarine ' 'made wholly or in part of fat, oil or oleaginous substance 
 or compound thereof, as follows, to wit: 
 
 Water : . 11 . 75 per cent. 
 
 Butter fat 1 .34 per cent. 
 
 Beef fat, lard and cottonseed oil ... . 79 . 24 per cent . 
 
 Salt and other mineral matter. ... 4.54 per cent. 
 
 Curd 3 . 13 per cent. 
 
 Said article, product or compound not being then and there butter 
 produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, and be- 
 ing then and there in imitation of yellow butter produced from un- 
 adulterated milk or cream from the same, and not being then and 
 there oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form and in such man- 
 ner as would advise the consumer of its real character, free from col- 
 oration or ingredient that would cause it to look like butter, but that 
 the said oleomargarine was then and there of a yellow color in imi- 
 tation of butter, said color not being then and there produced by the 
 addition of any artificial coloring matter, but said color being pro- 
 duced solely by the said ingredients therein contained, the said in- 
 gredients hereinbefore set forth having been selected and used in the 
 manufacture of said oleomargarine in such manner and in such quan- 
 tities and proportion as to produce the oleomargarine that was then 
 and there in imitation of yellow butter produced from unadulterated 
 milk or cream from the same, contrary to the form of the statute," 
 etc. 
 
 The oleomargarine so purchased was manufactured in the city of 
 Chicago, State of Illinois, by one Moxley, a resident of said city, and 
 was sold by said Moxley to said Aamondt in the usual course of trade, 
 and by said Aamondt was sold in the usual course of retail trade, in 
 the same form and condition, and in the original package, in which 
 it was received by Aaipondt from Moxley. 
 
 It is conceded that this oleomargarine has a yellow color similar 
 to butter, but the color is not produced by any artificial coloring sub- 
 stance or ingredient used for the purposes of coloration, but is pro- 
 duced solely by the selection and use, in proper proportions, of the 
 substantial, recognized, legal and necessary ingredients of commer- 
 cial oleomargarine. 
 
 Does the complaint state an offense covered by the statute? The 
 12 
 
90 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 answer depends upon the construction to be given to the statute. 
 The relator contends that the statute covers all products which look 
 like yellow butter, andrthat it is immaterial whether such color is 
 produced by some ingredient introduced for the purpose of causing 
 the product to look like butter, or whether such color is produced 
 by authorized and legal constituent food ingredients. The respond- 
 ent contends that the statute is aimed only at the use of ingredients 
 used solely for the purpose of producing the yellow color, and does 
 not prevent the manufacture of an article whose color is natural, gen- 
 uine and not an imitation. Penal statutes must be construed strictly 
 and cannot be extended by construction beyond the intent of the act 
 as expressed on its face. The conditions existing at the time the 
 statute was enacted, and the mischief to be remedied, are important 
 factors in construing penal statutes. Two acts covering the same 
 subject must be construed as in pari materia, and, if possible, effect 
 given to both. These are elementary rules of construction. At the 
 time the statute in question was enacted the only method in use in 
 causing oleomargarine to look like yellow butter was the introduction 
 of some extraneous coloring matter. This was the mischief to be 
 remedied. We clearly so understood in People v. Rotter, 9 D. L. N. 
 284; 91 N. W. Rep. 167, where, speaking through Chief Justice Hooker, 
 we said of this statute: ''The statute under consideration * * * 
 does not prohibit sales of oleomargarine which is not tainted with 
 the prohibited ingredient." 
 
 See also People v. Phillips, 9 Id. 393; 91 N. W. Rep. 616. 
 
 The legislature has defined oleomargarine which may be manu- 
 factured and>old in this State. Sec. 6, Act No. 147, PubUc Acts of 
 1899. It is conceded that the respondent has complied with this 
 act. If we give the enlarged construction to the statute now in ques- 
 tion, as urged by the relator, it follows that the legislature has pro- 
 hibited the manufacture and sale of a valuable article of food, the 
 natural color of which resembles yellow butter (itself almost univer- 
 sally colored by extraneous matter). The manufacturer of such a 
 product, if he sold it at all, would be compelled to introduce some 
 coloring matter so as to make it look unlike the yellow butter of com- 
 merce. These two statutes must be construed together. The article 
 sold by the respondent is clearly authorized by the first act. The 
 latter act does not in terms prohibit its sale and manufacture. It 
 does prohibit the use of any substance for the sole purpose of pro- 
 ducing yellow color. The use of such coloring matter was the sole 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 91 
 
 mischief then known to exist, and the only danger to be apprehended 
 and guarded against. 
 
 A similar statute was passed in New Jersey, and the like conten- 
 tion was made to support a conviction, and the court said: "To 
 -construe the statute so broadly would render it practically prohibi- 
 tive of the sale of all oleomargarine; for, of course, the compound must 
 derive color from its ingredients, and such a prohibition has mani- 
 festly not been declared." 
 
 Ammon v. Newton, 14 At. Rep. 610; 50 N. J. 548. 
 McCan v. Commonwealth, 48 At. Rep. 470; 198 P. A. 
 St. 509. 
 
 Our statute is copied verbatim from that of Massachusetts. The 
 Supreme Court of that State, in a case just decided, has held that 
 the statute applies only to extraneous substances or ingredients which 
 cause the product to look like butter, and not to cases where the in- 
 gredients themselves naturally produce the color. 
 
 Commonwealth v. Himberg, . 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States so held in regard to the 
 same statute. 
 
 Plumley v. Commonwealth, 155 U. S. 461. 
 
 The term "ingredient," used in the statute, does ijot refer to the 
 ingredients essential to produce the article as defined by the legisla- 
 ture, but to an ingredient used to produce color. The maxim noscitur 
 a sociis applies. 
 
 Under this disposition of the case it becomes unnecessary to discuss 
 any constitutional question. 
 
 The order is affirmed. 
 
 The other justices concurred. 
 
92 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 PEOPLE V. HARRIS. 
 
 (Opinion filed December 1, 1903.). 
 
 Food — Corn Syrups — Glucose. 
 
 1. Public Acts 1903, No. 123 forbids the sale of cane syrup or beet 
 syrup niixed with glucose, unless the package containing the same 
 be distinctly branded "Glucose Mixture" or ''Com Syrup,'* 
 with the name and percentage of each ingredient contained there- 
 on plainly stamped thereon. Held, That a sale of syrup made 
 of 90 per cent pure corn syrup and 10 per cent cane syrup, labeled 
 ' 'Victor Corn Syrup," and truthfully stating the ingredients com- 
 posing it, is not in violation of the statute, in that it is not brand- 
 ed ''Glucose, 90 per cent, and cane syrup 10 per cent." 
 
 Exceptions from circuit court, Kent county; WiUis B. Perkins, 
 Judge. 
 
 Benjamin S. Harris was convicted of violating the "Act in rela- 
 tion to the sale of corn syrup" and brings exceptions. Reversed. 
 
 Respondent was prosecuted and convicted for a violation of Act 
 No. 123 of the Pubhc Acts of 1903, entiled "An act in relation to 
 the sale of corn syrup," and reading as follows: 
 
 "Sec. 1. No person shall offer or expose for sale, have in his pos- 
 session with intent to sell, any cane syrup, beet syrup, or glucose, un- 
 less the barrel, cask, keg, can, pail or package containing the same 
 be distinctly branded or labeled with the true and appropriate name; 
 nor shall any person offer or expose for sale, have in his possession 
 with intent to sell, or sell any cane syrup or beet syrup mixed with 
 glucose unless the barrel, cask, keg, can, pail or package containing 
 the same be distinctly branded or labeled 'Glucose Mixture' or 'Corn 
 Syrup' in plain Gothic type not less than three-eights of an inch square,, 
 with the name and percentage by weight of each ingredient contained 
 therein plainly stamped, branded or stenciled on^ each package in 
 plain Gothic letters not less than one-quarter of an inch square. Each 
 and every package of syrup either simple or mixed shall bear the name 
 and address of the manufacturer. Such mixtures or syrups shall 
 have no other designation or brand than herein required that repre- 
 sents or is the name of any article which contains a saccharine sub- 
 stance; and all brands or labels required shall be an inseparable part 
 of the general or distinguishing label, and that the general or dis- 
 tinguishing label shall be that principal and conspicuous sign under 
 which it is sold. 
 
 Sec. 2. Whoever shall do any of the acts or things prohibited, or 
 neglect or refuse to do any -of the acts or things required by this act 
 or in any way violate any of the provisions, shall be deemed guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not less than twenty- 
 five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 
 
 in the county jail for a period of not less than thirty nor rhore than 
 ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion 
 of the court." 
 
 The complaint charges him with the unlawful sale of ' 'a two-pound 
 can, two pounds, of a certain article, product and compound, to- wit: 
 corn syrup, so-called, made wholly or in part of cane syrup and glu- 
 cose as follows, to-wit: Cane syrup ten per cent, and glucose ninety 
 per cent, said can containing said article, product and compound sold 
 as aforesaid not being then and there stamped, branded or stenciled 
 with the name and percentage by weight of each ingredient contained 
 therein, to-wit: cane syrup ten per cent, glucose ninety per cent; 
 but said article, product and compound sold as aforesaid was then 
 and there stamped and branded as follows, to-wit: 'Cane syrup ten 
 per cent, corn syrup ninety per cent,' against the form of the statute 
 in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity 
 of the people of the State of Michigan." 
 
 Respondent moved to quash the complaint and warrant for two 
 reasons: (1) they charged no offense; (2) the act authorizes the use 
 of the words ''Corn Syrup," instead of Glucose in the statement of 
 the ingredients placed upon the can. The motion was overruled and 
 the case proceeded to trial upon the following agreed facts: 
 
 1. The respondent sold on October 12, 1903, at the city of Grand 
 Rapids, Michigan, the can of Victor Corn Syrup in question. 
 
 2. The label on said can of syrup sold, as stated in the complaint, 
 contains the formula of contents of said can as follows : ' 'Corn Syrup, 
 ninety per cent; cane syrup, ten per cent;" and is not branded or labeled 
 as the people claim it should be, ' 'Glucose, ninety per cent; Cane Syrup, 
 ten per cent." 
 
 3. The Victor Corn Syrup in question is in fact composed of ninety 
 per cent syrup made from corn, commercially called Glucose or Corn 
 Syrup, and ten per cent of cane syrup. 
 
 4. Glucose contained in the Victor Corn Syrup in question is in 
 fact a pure syrup made entirely from corn. 
 
 5. Grape Sugar, commercially known as Glucose, either solid or 
 liquid, is a generic name for starch sugar as distinguished from the 
 cane sugar. 
 
 6. A simple beet syrup is evidently the same as the simple cane 
 syrup. 
 
 7. Originallly, Glucose, which was first made from grapes, was, 
 for the reason that starch sugars are identical with the sweet principle 
 of grapes, termed, for a great many years, and until lately was known 
 chemically and commercially as Grape Sugar. 
 
 8. Commercially, Glucose is now made in this country entirely 
 from corn, although abroad it is still made from potatoes. 
 
 9. The consuming public does not understand that Glucose is a 
 syrup made entirely from corn. On the contrary, it is claimed by 
 the respondent that the public generally supposes Glucose to be an 
 inferior product made from animal fat, or a product of the glue factory, 
 while they do recognize corn syrup as being made from corn. 
 
 10. Glucose as made from corn and contained in Victor Corn Syrup 
 
94 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 in question, is entirely harmless and recognized generally by highest- 
 authorities as a valuable food product. 
 
 11. Glucose made from corn, in fact, costs, at the present time^ 
 owing partially to cost of raw material, more to produce, and sells- 
 for more in the markets, than manufactured cane syrup. 
 
 The court directed a verdict of guilty. 
 
 Grant, J. 
 
 Does the statute require respondent or manufacturers to 
 state upon their labels that corn syrup consists of ninety per cent glu- 
 cose? No such statute has come under the decision of other courts. 
 It is a new question, and must be determined upon general principles 
 of construction. 
 
 It is conceded that the label states the exact facts; that the article- 
 is made of ninety per cent pure corn syrup and ten per cent cane syrup; 
 that it deceives no one; that Victor Corn Syrup is a valuable and pure 
 article of food, and that the ingredient ninety per cent corn syrup "is- 
 entirely harmless, and recognized generally by the highest authority 
 as a valuable food product," whether it be called glucose or corn syrup. 
 The term ' 'Glucose' ' is obnoxious to many, if not a majority, of the 
 public, and is misunderstood by them. They do not know that in 
 this country glucose is now made entirely from corn, and that the 
 terms glucose and com syrup are commercially synonymous. This 
 fact is known to the manufacturers and perhaps the dealers. A pre- 
 judice exists against the term "glucose" because that material can 
 be manufactured from many substances, including sawdust. In 
 Europe it is made mainly of potatoes. By many it is associated with 
 a glue factory. In this country corn syrup and glucose are not only 
 commercially synonymous terms, but it is stated by counsel for res- 
 pondent that they are permitted to be so used in all the other states. 
 We have not verified this statement, but as it is not challenged we 
 assume it to be correct. 
 
 We have, therefore, a valuable and healthful product, made from 
 two pure, valuable and healthful ingredients, advertised and placed 
 upon the markets for what it really is, without any deception, fraud or 
 chance to injure the public in any way. Yet the contention on be- 
 half of the people is that the legislature has enacted that in putting 
 this product upon the market its manufacturers and sellers must at- 
 tach to it a name obnoxious to the public, and, in fact, calculated to 
 deceive them. When it is claimed that such innocent acts are made 
 malum 'prohibitum, there must be either an express provision of the 
 statute so declaring, or the language of the statute must leave no 
 other conclusion reasonable. This statute does not expressly require 
 it. 
 
 The argument on behalf of the people is "that glucose made from 
 com is glucose, the simple syrup mentioned in and intended to be 
 mentioned in said act." The further claim is "that had there been 
 any intention on the part of the legislature to use the terms 'glucose' 
 and 'corn syrup' interchangeably and as synonymous then the term 
 * com syrup' would have been enumerated as one of the simple syrups." 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 95 
 
 We do not think this reasoning at all conclusive. Prior to the enact- 
 ment of this statute the law prohibited the sale of molasses, syrup or 
 glucose unless distinctly branded or labeled with its true and appro- 
 priate name, — or any mixture thereof, unless it was branded or labeled 
 *^glucose mixture," and the per cent in which glucose entered into 
 its composition. C. L., sec. 5024, The present act which repeals 
 the provisions of the former act expressly permits the mixture to 
 be labeled "glucose mixture," or ''corn syrup." and forbids mixtures 
 or syrups to have any other designation than required in the act so 
 far as such designation ' 'represents or is the name of any article which 
 contains saccharine substance." It is a fair presumption that the 
 legislature, in enacting this law, recognized the obnoxious character 
 of the term "glucose" among the people, and permitted, and intended 
 to permit, a mixture of corn syrup and cane syrup to be sold under 
 the name of Corn Syrup. The title to the act provides for the sale 
 of com syrup, and in its body provides that when cane syrup is mixed 
 with it, the manufacturers and dealers shall state the proportionate 
 ingredients. The smaller amount of cane syrup used does not change 
 the character of the general product, any more than salt changes the 
 character of bread, or, sugar that of cake, and the act permits the sale 
 of the mixture as corn syrup. Syrup, as defined by the United States 
 Department of Agriculture, "is the product obtained by purifying 
 and evaporating the juice of a sugar producing plant without removing 
 any of the sugar." Syrup thus obtained from cane is cane syrup; 
 syrup so obtained from sorghum is sorghum syrup, and syrup so ob- 
 tained from com is corn syrup. There is no reason why com syrup 
 should be labeled ghicose, and until the legislature have so ordered 
 in language susceptible of no other construction, the law must be held 
 not to bear that construction. 
 
 Conviction reversed, and respondent discharged. 
 
 Hooker, C. J., took no part in the decision. The o'ther justices 
 concurred. 
 
90 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 PEOPLE V. HINSHAW. 
 
 (Opinion filed January 5, 1904.) 
 
 Pure Food Law — Adulterated with Harmless Ingredients — Act 193, 
 P. A. 1895, Construed. 
 
 The coloration of "Extract of Vanilla" with any substance to give 
 it the appearance of greater strength is a violation of the pure food 
 law, even though such coloring matter is harmless. 
 
 Act 193, P. A. 1895, as amended by Act 118, P. A. 1897, held con- 
 stitutional. 
 
 Error to the Circuit Court for Saginaw County, B. A. Snow, Judge. 
 
 Appeal of Emory H. Hinshaw from a conviction under the pure food 
 law. Affirmed. 
 
 Charles A. Blair, attorney general, and Frank A. Rockwith, Jr., 
 and C. M. Browne, for the people. 
 
 Eugene Wilber for respondent and appellant. 
 
 Respondent was prosecuted and convicted of the unlawful sale 
 of '^Extract of Vanilla, which was then and there adulterated with- 
 in the meaning of act number 193 of the Public Acts of the State of 
 Michigan of the year 1895, as amended by act number 118 of the Pub- 
 lic Acts of 1897, in this, to wit: That said Extract of Vanilla was 
 colored by the addition of a foreign coloring matter, to wit: coal tar 
 dye, whereby its inferiority was concealed, and whereby said Ex- 
 tract of Vanilla was made to appear better and of greater value than 
 it really was." 
 
 Two errors are assigned. — (1) that the court erred in instructing 
 the jury; (2) that the act is unconstitutional as repugnant to the Four- 
 teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Grant, J.: 1. The instruction complained of is as follows: 
 *'Now before the inferiority of an article can be concealed it must 
 be necessarily first ascertained as to whether or not there is an infer- 
 iority in the article. If it is an inferior article and that inferiority is 
 concealed by reason of the addition of foreign substance in this vanilla, 
 and you are satisfied from the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of 
 the fact, then he would be guilty, although he had no knowledge as 
 to the foreign substance being in the bottle." 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 97 
 
 It appears that no such claim was made on behalf of respondent upon 
 the trial; no request was asked covering the points now raised. The 
 only objections shown by the record to have been made are, — first, 
 that the title is not broad enough to cover the provisions in the amend- 
 ment of 1897; second, that the legislature has no power to prohibit and 
 punish acts in themselves harmless; third, that tne act is 
 unconstitutional. 
 
 Even in criminal cases it is the duty of counsel to call the atten- 
 tion of the court to the points on which an instruction is desired. Peo- 
 ple vs. Ezzo, 104 Mich. 311. 
 
 We, however, are of the opinion that the information charges the 
 coloration to make an inferior article appear better and more valu- 
 able than it really was, and is sufficient; and also that there was evi- 
 dence to sustain the allegation. The State Chemist testified that the 
 effect of the coal tar dye was to make the article appear of greater 
 value than it really is, and that the people would think it stronger 
 than it really was. It is true, his testimony was weakened by cross- 
 examination, but not sufficient to take the question from the jury, — 
 especially in view of the fact that no other purpose than to make the 
 article appear better, is shown. 
 
 II. The use of coal tar dye being harmless, counsel for respondent 
 insists that the case comes within the rule of the recent case of People 
 vs. Jennings, 94 N. W. R. 216; 10 D. L. N. 39. That case had not 
 been decided when this case was tried. No such theory was advanced 
 upon the trial. Even if it were, we, however, think the case is clear- 
 ly distinguishable from People vs. Jennings. The color given to 
 lemon extract, which of itself is almost colorless, is no indication what- 
 ever of the strength of the extract or its value. Its color is a mere 
 whim or caprice of the trade, and no more indicates the character 
 and value of the extract than does the coloring matter, -used to color 
 butter, indicate its character and value. In this case Vanilla resem- 
 bles the color of the bean from which it is produced. Its strength 
 and value are judged to some extent at least, under the evidence in 
 this case, from its color. No other object is apparent from the use 
 of the coloring than to make it appear of a quality better than it really 
 is. 
 
 III. It is urged that the kct is unconstitutional on account of the 
 
 Eroviso "that nothing in this act shall prevent the coloring of pure 
 utter." This act is similar in its provisions to that involved in Peo- 
 ple vs. Rotter. 91 N. W. R. 167; and People vs. PhiUips, Id. 616. The 
 constitutionality of such acts was there sustained, and a discussion 
 is unnecessary. Capital City Dairy Co. vs. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 246, 
 is decisive of the question. 
 The conviction is affirmed. 
 The other justices concurred. .J 
 
 13 
 
ABSTRACT OF LAWS. 
 
 The following is but a brief synopsis of the Dairy and 
 Food Laws. The Digest and Rulings cover but a portion 
 of the food and drink products affected by the statutes. 
 Every article of food and drink comes within the law's 
 regulation, and dealers are advised to examine the laws 
 carefully and inform themselves fully. 
 
 IN GENERAL. 
 
 No person shall within this State manufacture for sale, 
 have in his possession with intent to sell, offer or expose 
 for sale, or sell, any article of food or drink which is 
 adulterated. 
 
 The taking of orders, or the making of agreements or con- 
 tracts, by any person, firm, or corporation, or by any agent 
 or representative thereof, for the future delivery of any 
 of the articles, products, goods, wares or merchandise em- 
 braced within the provisions of this act is deemed a sale. 
 
 Under this statute a dealer is liable for selling an adul- 
 terated article, although he may have no knowledge that 
 the same is adulterated. 
 
 A guarantee of purity received from the manufacturer 
 or jobber does not relieve a person handling adulterated 
 goods from liability. 
 
 AN ARTICLE 
 
 shall be deemed to be adulterated: 
 
 1. If any substance or substances have been mixed 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 99 
 
 with it, SO as to lower or depreciate or injuriously affect 
 its quality, strength or purity. ; 
 
 2. If any inferior or cheaper substance or substances 
 have been substituted wholly or in part for it ; 
 
 3. If any valuable or necessary constituent or ingre- 
 dient has been wholly or in part abstracted from it; 
 
 4. If it is an imitation of or is sold under the name of 
 another article ; 
 
 5. If it consists wholly or in part of a diseased, decom- 
 posed, putrid, infected, tainted or rotten animal or vegetable 
 substance or article, whether manufactured or not, or, 
 in the case of milk, if it is the product of a diseased 
 animal ; 
 
 6. If it is colored, coated, polished or powdered, where- 
 by damage or inferiority is concealed, or if by any means 
 it is made to aj^pear better or of greater value than it really 
 is, except in the case of pure butter, which may be colored. 
 
 7. If it contains any added substance or ingredient 
 which is poisonous or injurious to health. 
 
 MIXTURES OR COMPOUNDS. 
 
 recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles 
 of food may be sold under the following restrictions: 
 
 1. All packages containing same must bear the name 
 and address of the manufacturer or compounder thereof; 
 
 2. They must contain nothing injurious to health; 
 
 3. They must not be sold in imitation of, or under the 
 name of another article; 
 
 4. They must be distinctly labeled under their own 
 distinctive name, and in a manner so as to plainly and 
 correctly show they are a mixture or compound; 
 
 5. A mixture or compound cannot be sold under the 
 name of any ingredient contained therein, even though 
 the words mixture or compound be used in connection 
 therewith. It must be sold under an original or coined name. 
 
 Exceptions under the law are: 
 
 Buckwheat flour, coffee and lard, which may be mixed 
 with other substances under certain restrictions and sold 
 as buckwheat flour compound, coffee compound and lard 
 compound. 
 
100 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 DIGEST AND RULINGS. 
 
 Baking Powder. — All packages containing same must 
 bear name and address of the manufacturer. Can be sold 
 without formula, but if labeled cream of tartar, phos- 
 phate powder, etc., must be true to name. 
 
 Buckwheat Flour. — If labeled ' 'Buckwheat Flour" must 
 be true to name. Can be mixed with substances not in- 
 jurious to health if labeled ' 'Buckwheat Flour Compound'' 
 in letters not less than one-half inch in length followed 
 with the name of the maker and factory and the location 
 of such factory. Any other label or printed matter upon 
 the package shall not be in contravention of the above 
 requirements. 
 
 Butter. — Must be made exclusively of milk or cream. 
 May be colored with coloring matter not injurious to health. 
 Butter factories where milk or cream is purchased of, or 
 contributed by, three or more persons must register with 
 the Department on or before April 1 of each year. Reno- 
 vated butter must be labeled as such. See ruling under 
 head of Renovated Butter. 
 
 Candy. — Must not contain terra alba, barytes, talc, or 
 other earthy or mineral substances, or any poisonous col- 
 ors or flavors, or ingredients detrimental to health. 
 
 Catsup. — All packages containing same must bear the 
 name and address of the manufacturer. Must contain 
 jio ingredients injurious to health. 
 
 Cheese. — Must be made exclusively of milk qt cream. 
 Only cheese made from milk frorn which no cream has 
 been taken can be sold as, or branded, ' 'Full Cream Cheese,'' 
 or "Full Milk Cheese." Cheese factories where milk or 
 cream is purchased of, or contributed by, three or more 
 persons must register with the Department, on or before 
 April 1 of each year. Authorized brands bearing the words, 
 "Michigan Full Cream Cheese," may be obtained from 
 
DAIRY AJJD FiOOto tA;^9^! \ I '; '> , '; i , 101 
 
 the Department upon payment of a fee of one dollar an- 
 nually. 
 
 Coffee. — If sold as such must be true to name. May 
 be mixed with chicory, or other substances not injurious 
 to health, if marked or labeled ' 'Coffee Compound," to- 
 gether with the name and address of the manufacturer 
 or compounder, and have no other label of whatever name 
 or designation. This applies to ail packages containing 
 such coffee whether put up for immediate delivery or for 
 stock purposes. 
 
 Coffee Substitute. — Mixtures of cereals or other ar- 
 ticles sold as substitute for coffee, must be sold as a mix- 
 ture or compound under an original or coined name and 
 not under the name of any ingredient contained therein 
 All packages containing same must bear the name and 
 address of the manufacturer or compounder thereof. 
 
 Canned Goods. — Must bear name and address of 
 packer. If dried before canning must be labeled, ' 'Soaked 
 or Bleached Goods," in letters not less than two line pica 
 in size. 
 
 Cream of Tartar. — Must be pure and true to name. 
 Cannot be mixed or compounded with any other article 
 and sold under the name of any ingredient thereof, even 
 though it be labeled mixture or compound. 
 
 Extracts, Flavoring. — Bottles or packages containing 
 extracts must bear' the name and address of the manu- 
 facturer. Vanilla flavoring must be without artificial 
 color. This includes all extracts of vanilla or tonka whether 
 mixed or simple. 
 
 Extracts of vanilla and tonka may be mixed and sold 
 as ''Extract of Vanilla and Tonka," or simply "Extract 
 of Tonka." The labeling of an extract of vanilla and 
 tonka as "Extract of Vanilla" or "Compound Extract 
 of Vanilla,' ' with the per cent of each ingredient contained 
 therein, is not proper, and will be considered an adulter- 
 
102 
 
 
 ation. It must be understood that when an extract of 
 vanilla and tonka is labeled with both names, the type 
 used is to be similar in style and size, and that one name 
 is not to be given greater prominence than another. So 
 called extracts that are not made from the fruit, berry 
 or bean, and are made artificially, such as raspberry, straw- 
 berry, pineapple^ banana, etc., are prohibited by law. 
 
 Farinaceous Goods. — Must be true to name. Barley, 
 Hominy, Cracked or Rolled Wheat or Oats, Tapioca, and 
 like articles, must be pure and unadulterated. If mixed 
 or compounded with other articles, must be sold as a mix- 
 ture or compound, under an original or coined name, and 
 not under the name of any ingredient contained therein. 
 All packages containing mixtures or compounds of this 
 kind must bear the name and address of the manufacturer 
 or compounder thereof. 
 
 Honey.— Must be pure. Cannot be mixed with glucose 
 or other substances and sold as ^^Honey Compound." 
 
 Jellies, Jams, Fruit Butters, etc. — Imitation fruit jel- 
 lies, jams, preserves, fruit butters or other similar com- 
 pounds made or composed in whole or in part of glucose, 
 dextrine, starch or other substances, can be sold if un- 
 colored, are not injurious, and are distinctly and durably 
 labeled 'Imitation Fruit Jelly, Jam, Preserves or Fruit 
 Butter," with the name and location of manufacturer, 
 and have no other label of whatever name. 
 
 Lard. — Imitation lard in manufactures' packages must 
 be distinctly branded or labeled either ' 'Lard Compound, " 
 ''Adulterated Lard," or "Lard Substitute," in letters 
 not less than one inch in length, and shall be followed with 
 the name of the maker and factory, and the location of 
 such factory. If kept or sold in other than manufactur- 
 ers' packages the name of the maker or factory is not nec- 
 essary, but each and every package must be distinctly 
 labeled ' 'Lard Compound,' ' ' 'Adulterated Lard, " or ' 'Lard 
 Substitute," printed in letters not less than one-half inch 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 103 
 
 in length. This also applies to smaller quantities when 
 put up for immediate delivery. 
 
 Liquors. — Spirituous, fermented, or malt liquors must 
 not contain drugs or poisons or ingredients deleterious or 
 unhealthy. Persons engaged in manufacturing, rectifying 
 or preparing same in any way must brand on each barrel, 
 cask, or vessel containing the same, the name of the person, 
 firm or corporation manufacturing, rectifying or preparing 
 the same, and also the words, ' Ture and without drugs 
 or poison. " No person shall sell at wholesale or retail 
 any such liquors from any barrel, cask or vessel, unless 
 the same shall have been branded and marked as aforesaid. 
 
 Maple Sugar and Maple Syrup. — Must be pure and true 
 to name. Cannot be mixed with • other sugar or syrup 
 and sold as ''Maple Sugar Compound" or ''Ma]]ie Syrup 
 Compound. " 
 
 Milk. — Must contain not less than three per cent fat 
 and twelve and one-half per cent solids. Milk from which 
 cream has been removed must be labeled and sold as ' 'Skim 
 Milk. " The sale of milk which is impure, unwholesome 
 or adulterated, or from cows which are diseased, or fed 
 upon the refuse of a distillery or brewery, or upon any 
 substance deleterious to the quality of the milk, such as 
 garbage, swill, or any substance in a state of fermentation 
 or putrefaction, or from cows kept in connection with a 
 family in which there is infectious disease, is prohibited. 
 The addition of coloring matter or preservatives in milk 
 is prohibited. 
 
 Molasses. — Each barrel, cask, can, keg or pail contain- 
 ing molasses, syrup or glucose shall be distinctly branded 
 or labeled with the true and appropriate name of such 
 article. Packages containing molasses mixed with glu- 
 cose shall be branded or labeled "Glucose Mixture" and 
 the per cent in which glucose enters into its composition. 
 All brands or labels shall be in letters of not less than one- 
 half inch in length and shall be in a conspicuous place. 
 
104 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Glucose and glucose mixtures shall have no other designa- 
 tion than herein required. Glucose mixtures must bear 
 the name and address of the manufacturer. (See Syrup.) 
 
 Oleomargarine. — ^AU compounds of animal or vegetable 
 fats made in imitation or semblance of butter, or calculated 
 to be used as or for butter, must be known and designated 
 as ' 'Oleomargarine. " 
 
 The use of the name of any breed of dairy cattle, or the 
 use of any words or symbols commonly used in the sale 
 of butter, is forbidden in the sale, exposure for sale or ad- 
 vertisement of any oleomargarine. 
 
 Proprietors of any place where oleomargarine is sold 
 or furnished must have conspicuously placed on the walls 
 of the room where the same is sold or furnished, a white 
 placard containing the words , ' 'Oleomargarine Sold or 
 Used Here" printed in black ink in plain Roman letters 
 not less than three inches in length nor less than two inches 
 in width. This applies to hotel, restaurant and board- 
 ing house keepers where oleomargarine is served 
 
 All packages containing oleomargarine must be branded 
 as such in ordinary bold faced capital letters not less than 
 five line pica in size, together with the name and address 
 of the manufacturer and the name of each and every article 
 or ingredient used or entering into its composition in ordin- 
 ary bold-faced letters not less than pica in size. 
 
 Dealers must notify purchasers at the time of selling 
 oleomargarine by verbal notice 'that the same is a sub- 
 stitute for butter, and must also deliver to the purchaser 
 a separate and distinct label on which shall be printed 
 in black ink in ordinary bold-faced capital letters, not less 
 than five line pica in size the word ''Oleomargarine," to- 
 gether with the name and address of the manufacturer 
 and the name of each article used and entering into its 
 composition in ordinary bold-faced letters not less than 
 pica in size. This label must be dehvered in addition to 
 the label contained on the package in which said oleo- 
 margarine is wrapped for sale. 
 
 Oleomargarine must not contain artificial coloring matter. 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 105 
 
 Pancake Flour. — If containing more than one article 
 must be sold as a mixture or compound under an original 
 or coined name', and not under the name of any ingredient 
 contained therein. Packages containing same must 
 bear the name and address of the manufacturer or com- 
 pounder. 
 
 Pepper. — All black pepper shall contain not more than 
 six and one-half per cent ash or mineral matter; and shall 
 contain not less than twenty-five per cent starch as de- 
 termined by the diastase method; and shall contain not 
 less than six tenths of one per cent nor more than one and 
 three-fourths per cent of volatile ether extract; and shall 
 contain not more than ten per cent nor less than six and 
 one-half per cent of non- volatile ether extract; and shall 
 contain not more than sixteen per cent of crude fibre. 
 
 Prepared Mustard. — Pure Mustard mixed with vinegar 
 and spices may be sold if labeled 'Trepared Mustard" 
 and bear the name and address of the manufacturer, but 
 if any substance or substances are added to cheapen it, 
 such as flour, etc., it- will be deemed adulterated. The 
 label proper must contain the words ''Prepared Mustard," 
 and have no other designation than herein required. Printed 
 matter descriptive of the goods will be allowed upon the 
 label below the words ''Prepared Mustard," or below the 
 name and address of the manufacturer. 
 
 Renovated Butter. — All packages containing same sold, 
 offered or exposed for sale, or in possession with intent 
 to sell, must be labeled ' 'Renovated Butter. " 
 
 Packages put up for immediate delivery shall be covered 
 by wrappers on which must be printed the words "Reno- 
 vated Butter" in Gothic letters at least three-eighths of 
 an inch square and such wrappers shall contain no other 
 words or printing thereon, and said words "Renovated 
 Butter" so printed shall not be in any manner concealed. 
 
 If packed in tubs or other receptacles the words "Reno- 
 vated Butter" must be printed in Gothic letters at least 
 three-eights of an inch square on two sides of the same. 
 
 14 
 
106 STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 If uncovered or not in a case or package a placard con- 
 taining said words in the same form as above described 
 shall be attached to the mass in such manner as to be easily 
 seen and read by the purchaser. 
 
 Saccharine. — The use of saccharine in all food products 
 is prohibited. 
 
 Syrup. — Syrup mixed with glucose must be distinctly 
 branded or labeled ' 'Glucose Mixture' ' or ' 'Corn Syrup" 
 ^in plain Gothic type not less than three-eighths of an inch 
 square. It shall also have the name and percentage by 
 weight of each ingredient contained therein plainly stamped, 
 branded or stenciled on each package in plain Gothic 
 letters not less than one-fourth of an inch square. Every 
 package of syrup either simple or mixed shall bear the 
 name and address of the manufacturer. It shall have 
 no other designation or brand that represents or is the 
 name of any article which contains a saccharine substance 
 and all brands or labels shall be an inseparable part of 
 the general or distinguishing label, which shall be that 
 principal and conspicuous sign under which it is sold. 
 
 Spices. — Must be pure and true to name. Cannot be 
 mixed or compounded with any other article and sold under 
 the name of any ingredient thereof, even though the pack- 
 age be labeled mixture or compound. (See Pepper.) 
 
 Sweet Chocolates and Sweet Cocoas. — If containing no 
 other substance than cocoa mass, and not to exceed 60 
 per cent of sugar and flavoring, will not be classed as a 
 compound or mixture. They must be plainly and distinctly 
 labeled sweet chocolate or sweet cocoa, and bear the name 
 and address of the manufacturer. 
 
 Vinegar. — All packages containing vinegar must be 
 branded with the name and address of the manufacturer. 
 All vinegar must contain not less than four per cent by 
 weight of absolute acetic acid and must not contain any 
 preparation of lead, copper, sulphuric acid, or ingredients 
 
DAIRY AND FOOD LAWS. 107 
 
 injurious to health. All vinegar made by fermentation 
 and oxidation must be branded ' 'fermented vinegar/ ' 
 with the name of the fruit or substance from which the 
 same is made, must be free from foreign substance and 
 must contain not less than one and three-fourths per cent 
 by weight of solids contained in the fruit or grain from 
 which said vinegar is fermented, and not less than two and 
 a half tenths of one per cent ash or mineral matter, the 
 same being the product of the material from which said 
 vinegar is manufactured. All vinegar made wholly or 
 in part from distilled liquor must be branded ' 'Distilled 
 Vinegar," and must be free from artificial coloring mat- 
 ter. Only vinegar made from pure apple juice, free from 
 foreign substances, drugs, or acids, and containing not 
 less than one and three-fourths per cent by weight of cider 
 vinegar solids, can be sold as apple, orchard or cider 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Section Page 
 
 ADULTERATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS 29 22 
 
 food defined 30 22 
 
 articles when adulterated 31 22 
 
 does not apply to mixtures or compounds 31 23 
 
 APIARIES: 
 
 inspector, how appointed 22 19 
 
 inspection of 23 19 
 
 inspector may burn diseased apiaries 24 20 
 
 penalty for selling diseased bees, honey, etc 25 20 
 
 report of inspector 26 20 
 
 appropriation 27 20 
 
 salary of inspector 27 20 
 
 act repealed 28 20 
 
 APPROPRIATION 11 11 
 
 tax levy 12 11 
 
 BAKERIES: 
 
 commissioner to enforce cleanliness 6 7 
 
 penalty for permitting unsanitary conditions to exist 6 7 
 
 BAKING POWDER: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 100.) / 
 
 BEES: (See Apiaries, p. 19.) 
 
 BUCKWHEAT FLOUR: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 100.) 
 
 buckwheat flour compound, how labeled 50 29 
 
 prima facie evidence of intent 52 30 
 
 taking of orders deemed a sale 53 30 
 
 penalty • 54 30 
 
 repealing clause 55 30 
 
 BULLETINS: 
 
 to be issued monthly, what to contain \ 9 10 
 
 BUTTER: (See Renovated Butter.) 
 
 lawful butter defined 32 23 
 
 penalty for selling unlawful butter 32 23 
 
 (See Digest and Rulings, p. 100.) 
 
 CANDY: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 100.) 
 
 adulteration of candies 91 43 
 
 CANNED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES: (See Digest and Rul- 
 ings, p. 101.) 
 
 soaked or bleached goods, how labeled 42 27 
 
110 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Section Page 
 
 CATSUP: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 100.) 
 CHEESE: (See Dairy Products.) 
 
 lawful cheese defined 
 
 penalty for selling unlawful cheese 
 
 full milk cheese may be so branded ' 
 
 cheese factories and creameries must register and report annually.. 
 
 penalty for non-registration 
 
 brands for cheese, how obtained 
 
 record of cheese brands, commissioner to keep 
 
 fee for full cream cheese brands to be paid annually 
 
 falsely branded cheese 
 
 CHEESE FACTORIES: 
 
 must register annually with Dairy and Food Commissioner 
 
 penalty for non-registration 
 
 CHOCOLATES AND COCOAS: (See Sweet Chocolates and Sweet 
 
 Cocoas.) 
 CLERKS: 
 
 commissioner to appoint 
 
 CLEANLINESS OF CREAMERIES, CHEESE FACTORIES, MILK 
 DEPOTS, ETC.: 
 
 duties of commissioner in enforcing same 
 
 COFFEE AND COFFEE SUBSTITUTES: (See Digest and Rul- 
 ings, p. 101.) 
 
 imitations, adulterations, etc 
 
 coffee compound, how labeled 
 
 CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS: 
 
 chemical analysis to be furnished 
 
 articles included in the t?rm Commercial Feeding Stuffs 
 
 articles not included in the term Commercial Feeding Stuffs 
 
 duties of manufacturers, etc., in relation thereto 
 
 license to be obtained 
 
 analyses to be under direction of Dairy and Food Commissioner. . . 
 
 penalty for illegal sales 
 
 CONDENSED MILK FACTORIES: (See Dairy Products.) 
 
 registration and report of 
 
 CONFECTIONARIES: (See Ice Cream Plants.) 
 CORN SYRUP: (See Glucose Mixture.) 
 
 corn syrup defined 101 
 
 how to be labeled 101 
 
 name and percentage of ingredients to appear on label 101 
 
 other requirements in labeling 101 
 
 penalty 102 
 
 (See Digest and Rulings, p. 106.) 
 CREAMERIES: 
 
 must register with and report annually to Dairy and Food Com- 
 missioner ; 16 
 
 penalty for non-registration 34 
 
 CREAM OF TARTAR: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 101.) 
 
 33 
 
 23 
 
 33 
 
 24 
 
 34 
 
 24 
 
 16 
 
 13 
 
 34 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 25 
 
 36 
 
 25 
 
 16 
 
 13 
 
 34 
 
 24 
 
 43 
 
 27 
 
 43 
 
 27 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 16- 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 16 13 
 
 46 
 
 46 
 47 
 47 
 
 13 
 24 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Ill 
 
 * Section Page 
 DAIRY AND FOOD COMMISSIONER: 
 
 appointment and term of office 1 3 
 
 removal and vacancy 2 3 
 
 oath of office and bond 3 4 
 
 salary and expenses 4 4 
 
 appointment of deputy 4 4 
 
 appointment of clerks 4 4 
 
 appointment of inspectors 4 4 
 
 appointment of state analyst and assistant 5 5 
 
 duties of commissioner 6 6 
 
 power to examine articles of food and drink 6 6 
 
 may call for assistance of prosecuting attorney 7 9 
 
 annual report and monthly bulletins 9 10 
 
 penalty for obstructing (See also p. 18) 10 10 
 
 to appoint inspector of apiaries 22 19 
 
 when to cause inspection of apiaries to be made 23 19 
 
 to issue cheese brands 35 24 
 
 to investigate complaints 48 28 
 
 DAIRY PRODUCTS: 
 
 duties of commissioner in relation thereto 13 11 
 
 impure and unwholesome milk 14 12 
 
 penalty for furnishing same to creameries, cheese factories, con- 
 densed milk factories, etc 14 13 
 
 sanitary condition of creameries, cheese factories, etc 15 13 
 
 proprietors to be notified and warned 15 13 
 
 penalty for permitting unsanitary conditions to exist 15 13 
 
 registration of cheese factories, creameries, skimming stations, 
 
 condensed milk factories and milk depots 16 13 
 
 reports to be made 16 14 
 
 milk dealers to obtain a license '..... 17 14 
 
 DEPUTY DAIRY AND FOOD COMMISSIONER: 
 
 appointment of deputy commissioner 4 4 
 
 bond, oath of office and salary 4 5 
 
 right of access to places to be inspected 4 4 
 
 DIGEST AND RULINGS 100 
 
 EXTRACTS: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 'lOl.) 
 
 FARINACEOUS GOODS: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 102.) 
 
 FARM DAIRY: (See Dairy Products.) 
 
 FEEDING STUFFS: (See Concentrated Commercial Feeding 
 
 Stuffs.) 
 FOOD: (See Adulteration of Food Products.) 
 
 GLUCOSE MIXTURE, MOLASSES, ETC.: (See Corn Syrup.) 
 
 how labeled 
 
 (See Digest and Rulings, pp. 103 and 106.) 
 
 43 27 
 
112 INDEX. 
 
 Section Page 
 HONEY: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 102.) 
 
 penalty for selling adulterated honey 25 20 
 
 ICE CREAM PLANTS: 
 
 commissioner to enforce cleanliness 6 7 
 
 penalty for permitting unsanitary conditions to exist 6 7 
 
 INSPECTORS: 
 
 how appointed and number of 4 4 
 
 bond and oath of office 4 5 
 
 power to administer oaths 4 4 
 
 term of office 4 4 
 
 salary and expenses 4 4 
 
 right of access to places to be inspected 4 4 
 
 JELLY AND FRUIT BUTTER: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 102.) 
 
 imitations, how labeled 41 26 
 
 penalty 41 26 
 
 imitations not to be colored 41 26 
 
 LARD: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 102.) 
 
 lawful lard defined 37 25 
 
 labeling of lard imitations 38 25 
 
 packages containing lard substitutes to be labeled 39 26 
 
 possession of unlabeled lard substitutes 40 26 
 
 LIQUOR: (See Digest and Jlulings, p. 102.) 
 
 adulteration of liquor unlawful 93 44 
 
 labeling of pure liquor 94 44 
 
 evidence of intent to sell 96 44 
 
 liquor must be branded 95 44 
 
 false use of branded packages unlawful 97 45 
 
 druggists, etc., exempt 98 45 
 
 MAPLE SYRUP AND MAPLE SUGAR: 
 (See Digest and Rulings, p. 103.) 
 
 MILK: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 103.) 
 
 impure milk, .sale prohibited ' 61 32 
 
 double damages 61 33 
 
 penalty for violation 63 34 
 
 milk inspection in Detroit 64 34 
 
 duty of inspector 65 34 
 
 complaints 66 34 
 
 each sale a separate offence 67 35 
 
 hindrance of inspectors 68 35 
 
 milk inspectors in cities 69 35 
 
 penalty for adulteration of milk 70 35 
 
 skimmed milk to be labeled 72 36 
 
 standard ot pure milk 73 36 
 
 testing of milk 74 36 
 
INDEX. 
 
 113 
 
 Section 
 
 MILK— Continued. 
 
 penalty for selling skimmed or adulterated milk 75 
 
 sale of adulterated milk 76 
 
 penalty for violation 77 
 
 MILK DEPOT: 
 
 Owners or managers to register with and report to the Dairy and 
 Food Commissioner 16 
 
 MIXTURES OR COMPOUNDS: (See Abstract of Laws, p. 99.) 
 
 what constitutes 31 
 
 must bear name and address of manufacturer 31 
 
 must have a distinctive name 31 
 
 cannot be sold under the name of another article 31 
 
 can contain nothing poisonous or injurious to health 31 
 
 MOLASSES: 
 
 how labeled 43 
 
 when containing glucose, how labeled 43 
 
 size of letters used in labeling 43 
 
 MUSTARD : (Prepared .) 
 
 (See Digest and Rulings, p. 105.) 
 
 Page 
 
 37 
 37 
 37 
 
 13 
 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 22 
 23 
 
 27 
 27 
 27 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE: (See Supreme Court Opinions.) 
 
 labeling of butter substitutes 78 38 
 
 duty of persons selling butter substitutes 79 38 
 
 placard to be used where sold or furnished 80 39 
 
 terms unlawful to use 81 39 
 
 butter defined 82 39 
 
 oleomargarine defined 83 39 
 
 penalty for violation 84 40 
 
 coloring of oleomargarine unlawful 85 40 
 
 penalty 86 41 
 
 ingredient color, (See case of Bennett v. Carr) '. . . . 88 
 
 (See Digest and Rulings, p. 103.) 
 
 PANCAKE FLOUR: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 104.) 
 
 PEPPER: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 105.) 
 
 standard for black pepper 99 
 
 penalty for violation 100 
 
 PLACES WHERE FOOD OR DRINK ARE MANUFACTURED, 
 SOLD, ETC.: 
 
 to be kept in a sanitary condition 6 
 
 commissioner to enforce provision of section in relation thereto ... 6 
 penalty for failure to keep clean and sanitary 6 
 
 PRESERVATIVES: 
 
 act in relation thereto 103 
 
 PROCEEDINGS: 
 
 how commenced 7 
 
 justice to issue summons 7 
 
 time for appearance 7 
 
 when defendant cannot be found 7 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 7 
 7 
 
 47 
 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 
114 INDEX. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS— Continued. Section Page 
 
 shall proceed as in case of attachment 7 9 
 
 judgment, how rendered 7 g 
 
 right of appeal 7 g 
 
 disposition of proceeds 7 g 
 
 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: (See also p. 29) '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 
 
 to assist commissioner 7 g 
 
 RENOVATED BUTTER: (See Butter.) 
 
 renovated butter defined 37 41 
 
 how tubs, firkins, etc., shall be labeled 88 41 
 
 manner of labeling when exposed for sale in mass, 88 42 
 
 manner of labeling prints, rolls, etc 88 42 
 
 size of type to be used on label 88 42 
 
 cannot be concealed from view 88 42 
 
 penalty for violation 89 42 
 
 repeaUng clause go 42 
 
 (See Digest and Rulings, p. 105.) 
 
 SACCHARINE: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 106.) 
 
 SEIZURE OF ADULTERATED GOODS: (See Proceedings.) 
 
 when goods may be seized 7 8 
 
 duty of person making seizure 7 8 
 
 sample to be taken for analysis 7 ^ 8 
 
 state analyst to analfze same and certify results 7 8 
 
 commissioner or person duly authorized to make complaint 7 8 
 
 justice to issue summons 7 8 
 
 time for appearance 7 8 
 
 when defendant cannot be found 7 9 
 
 shall proceed as in case of attachment 7 9 
 
 judgment, how rendered 7 9 
 
 right to appeal 7 9 
 
 disposition of proceeds . . 7 9 
 
 SKIMMING STATIONS: 
 
 owner or manager to register with and to report to the Dairy and 
 
 Food Commissioner 16 13 
 
 SPICES: (See Pepper.) 
 
 STATE ANALYST AND ASSISTANT: 
 
 how appointed 5 5 
 
 who eligible 5 5 
 
 oath of office 5 5 
 
 term of office 5 5 
 
 laboratory 5 ^ 
 
 absence 5 5 
 
 salaries and expenses, how audited and paid 5 6 
 
 chemical supplies , 5 6 
 
 unlawful for analyst to furnish certificates of purity 8 10 
 
 to make reports on samples analyzed (See also p. 10) 7 8 
 
 SWEET CHOCOLATES AND SWEET COCOAS 106 
 
INDEX. 115 
 
 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS. 
 
 PEOPLE V. SNOWBERGER: Section Page 
 adulteration of food — statutory offenses, intent — police power 49 
 
 PEOPLE V. WORDEN GROCER CO.: 
 
 constitutional law — act to prevent sale of adulterated vinegar — 
 
 complaint — reasonableness of statute — defense 55 
 
 PEOPLE V. DETTENTHALER: 
 
 constitutional law — passage of act without enactment clause — 
 constitutional provision mandatory — addition of clause by 
 Governor — laws of 1897 invalid 61 
 
 GROSVENOR V. DUFFY: 
 
 pure food law — sale of oleomargarine colored to imitate butter — 
 
 constitutionality of act 68 
 
 PEOPLE V. SKILLMAN: 
 
 pure food law — Section 5022, C. L. construed — action against 
 
 traveling salesman 71 
 
 PEOPLE V. MORSE: 
 
 pure food law- — sales by agents — criminal responsibility for acts 
 
 of principal 75 
 
 PEOPLE V. ROTTER: ^ 
 
 food — oleomargarine act — constitutional law — statutes — title — 
 
 object 76 
 
 PEOPLE V. PHILLIPS: 
 
 food — adulteration — statutes — oleomargarine — yellow butter 79 
 
 PEOPLE V. JENNINGS: 
 
 adulteration of food — omission of ingredients — coloring matter — 
 
 remarks of court ' 82 
 
 BENNETT V. CARR: 
 
 pure food law, Act 22, P. A. 1901, construed — sale of yellow oleo- 
 margarine 88 
 
 PEOPLE V. HARRIS: 
 
 food — corn syrup — glucose 92 
 
 PEOPLE V. HINSHAW: 
 
 pure food — adulterated with harmless ingredient — Act 193, P. A. 
 
 1895, construed 96 
 
 VINEGAR: (See Digest and Rulings, p. 106.) 
 
 sale of vinegar 56 31 
 
 pure vinegar defined 56 31 
 
 fermented and distilled vinegar 57 31 
 
 standard for fermented vinegar 57 31 
 
 vinegar prohibited from sale 58 32 
 
 brand 58 32 
 
 penalty f 59 32 
 
 repealing clause .' 60 32 
 
B 2450 
 
 iy^f 
 
 oa-o 
 
 
 385899 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA UBRARY 
 
 <