Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/467

 Latest Important Cases tained therein, which shall be false or misleading in any particular. . ." The Court said regarding the interpre tation of this phrase: — "We are of opinion that the phrase is aimed not at all possible false state ments, but only at such as determine the identity of the article, possibly in

cluding its strength, quality and purity, dealt with in §7. . . . It was natural enough to throw this risk on shippers with regard to the identity of their

433

ﬁeld in which statements as to curative properties are downright falsehoods and in no sense expressions of judgment. This ﬁeld I believe this statute covers. . . “The question, then, is whether, if

an article is shipped in interstate com merce, bearing on its label a representa tion that it is a cure for a given disease, when, on a showing of the facts, there

would be a unanimous agreement that it was absolutely worthless and an out and-out cheat, the act of Congress can

wares, but a very different and unlikely

be said to apply to it. To my mind the

step to make them answerable for mis taken praise. It should be noticed still further that by §4, the determination whether an article is misbranded is left to the Bureau of Chemistry of the De

answer appears clear. . . "Nor does it seem to me that any

partment of Agriculture, which is most

statements as to strength, quality and purity. But so long as the statement

natural if the question concerns ingredi ents and kind, but hardly so as to medical effects.

"We shall say nothing as to the limits of constitutional power, and but a word

as to what Congress was likely to attempt. It was much more likely to regulate com merce in food and drugs with reference to plain matter of fact, so that food and drugs should be what they professed to be, when the kind was stated, than to

distort the uses of its constitutional power to establishing criteria in regions where opinions are far apart. See A men' can School v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94,

47 L. ed. 90, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33.” Mr. Justice Hughes, in the course of

serious question arises in this case as to the power of Congress.

I take it to

be conceded that misbranding may cover

is not as to matter of opinion, but con sists of a false representation of fact — in labeling the article as a cure when it is nothing of the sort from any point of view, but wholly worthless-there would appear to be no basis for a constitu

tional distinction. It is none the less descriptive — and falsely descriptive — of the article. Why should not worth less stuff, purveyed under false labels as cures, be made contraband of interstate commerce, as well as lottery tickets?

Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames) 188 U. S. 331, 47 L. ed. 497, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321, 13 Am. Crim. Rep. 561." Motor Vehicles.

Whether Speeding

his able dissenting opinion, said: —

"The argument is that the curative properties of articles purveyed as medici nal preparations are matters of opinion, and the contrariety of views among

Constitutes an Oﬂ‘ense Depends on Reason and Attendant Circumstances —Burden of Proof is on State to Prove the Oﬂense —

Making Certain Rates of Speed Prima Facie Evidence of Violation Does not

medical practitioners, and the conﬂict Shift Burden of Proof.

between the schools of medicine, are impressively described. But, granting the wide domain of opinion, and allow ing the broadest range to the conﬂict of medical views, there still remains a

Mass.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took a liberal view of the meaning of the statute (St. 1909, c. 534, s. 16)

prohibiting the operation of an automo