-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
<