Report of Wisconsin Dairy and Food Commissioner  43


hibit what Congress did not see fit to forbid. When they get within
that sphere is determined as we have said, by the old long-established
criteria. The Food and Drugs Act does not interfere with State regula-
tion of selling at retail. Armour d Co. vs. North Dakota, 240 U. S.
510, 617. McDermott vs. WRsconuin, 228 U. S. 115, 131. Such regula-
tion is not an attempt to supplement the action of Congress in inter-
state commerce but the exercise of an authority outside of that com-
merce that always has remained in the States.
"Should you desire a conference with any members of this depart-
ment for the purpose of any further elucidation of the questions herein
raised, prompt response to such request will be given."
That I have not within this biennium received from the Attorney
General answer to my several inquiries thus submitted, evinces the
conclusion that I did not overestimate the legal complexities and in-
tricacies involved in the case, and the lack of answers from the
Attorney General to my several inquiries explains my inability during
this time to. give adequate answer to inquiries coming to the Dairy
and Food Commissioner's office concerning this subject from the
public and the trade and explains my inactivity in attempting to en-
force law of uncertain application.
COMlPLEXO CAE
There has been an unusual number of convictions during this biennial
period for causes much out of the ordinary and which have required
no inconsiderable time and thought. Phases of the laws and of prac-
tices and a complexity of elements have been involved which are of
public interest. A few of such cases are detailed below:
STATE VS. GREEN BAY FISH COMPANY
During the month of September, 1922, an inspector from this depart-
ment found boxes of frosen fish in cold storage of above concern,
which were marked: Received March 25, 1922, and it was noted that
something had been removed from boxes; also, shavings were noticed
near boxes on floor.
On October 30, 1922, Senior Food Inspector Kremer and Inspector
Kelliher found 33 boxes of these fish, 17 of which were marked Rec'd.
March 25 and otifers Rec'd. January 19, 1924.
The manager then explained that the January date on 16 boxes was
an error; that all of the 33 boxes had been received from Hallett and
Company, Chicago, and were winter caught fish. He furnished two
letters from Hallett and Company, one dated March 22, 1922, offering
the fish, claiming some of them were good and another dated March
23, 1922, advising that they had been shipped as per instructions by
wire. The manager claimed he had not examined the fish and was not
informed as to their quality.
Examination of records in the ofce showed that the cold storage
company had reported to the Dairy and Food Commissioner that during
the month of March, 1922, no fish had been received in cold storage.