A state may classify persons and objects for the purpose of
legislation, provided the classification is based on proper and
justifiable distinctions, and so
held that c. 338 of the
laws of New York of 1893, prohibiting the sale of adulterated milk,
is not in conflict with the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment because in certain respects it provides
different prohibitions and penalties as to producing and
nonproducing vendors of milk.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error is a nonproducing wholesale and retail milk
dealer in the City of Buffalo, New York. In February, 1903,
Page 201 U. S. 634
he exposed for sale and sold a quantity of milk in violation of
sections 20 and 22 of chapter 338 of the laws of New York for the
year 1893, and its amendments and supplements, in that the said
milk contained more than 88% of water and less than 12% of milk
solids, to-wit, 89.24% of water and 10.36% of milk solids.
The Commissioner of Agriculture of the state, in pursuance of
said laws, filed a complaint against plaintiff in error in the
supreme court of the state charging him with the violation of the
laws, and that it was his second offense. Judgment was prayed for
the sum of $200, in pursuance of section 37. Plaintiff in error
admitted the charge, but alleged in defense that the laws were in
contravention of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States; also of the Constitution of New
York.
At the trial, he offered to show that the milk from which the
sample exhibited in the case was taken was in the same condition
when the sample was taken as it was when it left the herd of the
producer. The testimony was rejected, and plaintiff in error
excepted. The court directed the jury to find a verdict against him
for $100 and costs, which was done. He excepted to the ruling.
Under the procedure in New York, the court ordered the exceptions
to be heard in the appellate division. In that court, the
exceptions were overruled, a motion for a new trial was denied, and
judgment entered on the verdict. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment, and the record and proceedings were remanded
to the supreme court, where judgment was entered in accordance with
the remittitur from the Court of Appeals. This writ of error was
then sued out.
The purpose of the law which is assailed is to prevent the sale
of adulterated and unwholesome milk. Section 20
* defines
Page 201 U. S. 635
what milk shall be deemed adulterated, and it gives a very
comprehensive meaning to the word. Section 22 prohibits the sale or
offering for sale of such milk, or "any unclean, impure, unhealthy,
or unwholesome milk." Section 7 makes intention immaterial. Section
37 provides for the forfeiture to the people of the State of New
York of not less than $50 for the first violation of the law, and
increased sums for second and subsequent violations, and also makes
violations of the law misdemeanors. Section 12 is the one which is
especially complained of. It was added to the original law in 1898,
and is (omitting matter not necessary to quote) as follows:
"SEC. 12. Inspection, how conducted. . . . In taking samples of
milk for analysis at a creamery, factory, platform, or other place
where the same is delivered by the producer for manufacture, sale,
or shipment, or from a milk vender who produces the milk which he
sells, with a view of prosecuting the producer of such milk for
delivering, selling, or offering for sale adulterated milk, the
said Commissioner of Agriculture or assistant or his agent or
agents shall, within ten days thereafter, with the consent of the
said producer, take a sample in a like manner of the mixed milk of
the herd of cows from which the milk first sampled was drawn, and
shall deliver the duplicate sample to the said producer, and shall
cause the sample taken by himself or his agent to be analyzed. If
the sample of
Page 201 U. S. 636
milk last taken by the Commissioner of Agriculture or his agent
or agents shall, upon analysis, prove to contain no higher
percentage of milk solids or no higher percentage of fat than as
the sample taken at the creamery, factory, platform, or other
place, then no action shall lie against the said producer for
violation of subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 of section 20 of the
Agricultural Law. In taking a second sample, as above set forth,
from the mixed milk of the herd, it shall be the duty of the
Commissioner of Agriculture to have an assistant, agent, or agents
present during the entire time in which the said cattle are being
milked, to observe closely so as to be sure that the milk thus to
be sampled is not adulterated, and to see that it is thoroughly
mixed, so that the sample taken shall be a fair sample of the
average quality of the mixed milk of the entire dairy or herd of
cows of said producer. If, however, the said producer refuses to
allow such examination of the milk produced by his dairy, then he
shall be precluded from offering any evidence whatever tending to
show that the milk delivered by him at the said creamery, factory,
platform, or other place was just as it came from the cow. If the
said producer does permit such examination, the Commissioner of
Agriculture shall, upon receiving application therefor, send to
said producer a copy of the analysis of each of the samples of milk
so taken and analyzed as above provided."
The contention of plaintiff in error is that nonproducing
venders are discriminated against, and hence denied the equal
protection of the laws, contrary to the provisions of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in
that they may not, as producing venders may, exempt themselves from
actions or penalties for violations of subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 7, and
8 of section 20 by showing that the milk sold or offered for sale
by them is in the same condition as when it left the herd of the
producer.
It has been decided many times that a state may classify persons
and objects for the purpose of legislation. We will assume the
cases are known, and proceed immediately to consider
Page 201 U. S. 637
whether the classification of the law is based on proper and
justifiable distinctions, considering the purpose of the law and
the means to be observed to effect that purpose.
By referring to section 20, it will be observed that adulterated
milk as there defined includes not only that to which something has
been added, but milk from which the cream has been removed, or
which is deficient naturally in certain substances, or taken from
cows fed on certain things, or cows in certain conditions when
milked. In other words, the purpose of the law is to secure to the
population, adult and infant, milk attaining a certain standard of
purity and strength. All other milk is declared to be "unclean,
impure, unhealthy, adulterated, or unwholesome."
It is not contended that such purpose is not within the power of
the state, but it is contended that the power is not exercised on
all alike who sand in the same relation to the purpose, and quite
dramatic illustrations are used to show discrimination. A picture
is exhibited of producing and nonproducing venders selling milk
side by side; the latter, it may be, a purchaser from the former;
the act of one permitted, the act of the other prohibited or
penalized. If we could look no farther than the mere act of
selling, the injustice of the law might be demonstrated; but
something more must be considered. Not only the final purpose of
the law must be considered, but the means of its administration --
the ways it may be defeated. Legislation, to be practical and
efficient, must regard this special purpose as well as the ultimate
purpose. The ultimate purpose is that wholesome milk shall reach
the consumer, and it is the conception of the law that milk below a
certain strength is not wholesome, but a difference is made between
milk naturally deficient and milk made so by dilution. It is not
for us to say that this is not a proper difference, and regarding
it, the law fixed its standard by milk in the condition that it
comes from the herd. It is certain that, if milk starts pure from
the producer, it will reach the consumer pure if not tampered with
on the way. To prevent such tampering, the law is framed and
Page 201 U. S. 638
its penalties adjusted. As the standard established can be
proved in the hands of a producing vender, he is exempt from the
penalty; as it cannot certainly be proved in the hands of other
venders so as to prevent evasions of the law, such venders are not
exempt. In the one case, the source of milk can be known and the
tests of the statute applied; in the other case, this would be
impossible, except in few instances. We cannot see that any
particular hardship results. The nonproducing vender must exercise
care in his purchases, and good all around may be accomplished.
Through penalty on the nonproducing vender, the producer is
ultimately reached, though he may seem to be indulged. He will have
to raise the standard of the milk of his herd if he would keep or
extend his trade as anything but a mere retailer of his
product.
Judgment affirmed.
*
"SEC. 20. Definitions. . . ."
"The term 'adulterated milk,' when so used, means:"
"1. Milk containing more than eighty-eight percentum of water or
fluids."
"2. Milk containing less than twelve percentum of milk
solids."
"3. Milk containing less than three percentum of fat."
"4. Milk drawn from cows within fifteen days before and five
days after parturition."
"5. Milk drawn from animals fed on distillery waste or any
substance in a State of fermentation or putrefaction, or any
unhealthy food."
"6. Milk drawn from cows kept in a crowed or unhealthy
condition."
"7. Milk from which any part of the cream has been removed."
"8. Milk which has been diluted with water or any other fluid,
or to which has been added or into which has been introduced any
foreign substance whatever."
"All adulterated milk shall be deemed unclean, unhealthy,
impure, and unwholesome."
"SEC. 22. Prohibition of the sale of adulterated milk. -- No
person shall sell or exchange, or offer or expose for sale or
exchange, any unclean, impure, unhealthy, adulterated, or
unwholesome milk. . . ."