Commonwealth v. Dougherty

Citations

• 39 Pa. Super. 338
• 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 489

Syllabus

<p>Food, law — Adulteration—Evaporated peaches — External application of sulphur dioxide — Act of June 1, 1907, P. L. 386 — Constitutional law.</p> <p>1. The first proviso of subsection 5 of sec. 5 of the Act of June 1,1907, P. L. 386, violates sec. 6, art. Ill, of the Pennsylvania constitution relating to the amendment and extension of laws inasmuch as it attempts to introduce into the statute and make operative as a part of it an act of congress by a mere reference to its title, and also the rules and regulations that might be, from time to time, promulgated by the proper department of the federal government for the enforcement thereof. The unconstitutionality of the first proviso necessarily results in the unconstitutionality of the whole of the fifth subsection of sec. 5 of the act, because if the enacting portion of the clause were allowed to stand, persons would be drawn within the penalties provided by the statute who, the legislature declare by the terms of the proviso, should not be subject to such penalties.</p> <p>2. The unconstitutionality of subsection 5 of sec. 5 of the act of 1907, does not affect the validity and constitutionality of the other subsections of sec. 5, or of any other part of the act.</p> <p>3. A part of a statute may be unconstitutional and the remainder constitutional, and that which is constitutional will stand unless its provisions are so connected and dependent on each other in subject-matter that it must be presumed the legislature would not have enacted one without the other.</p> <p>4. Even if the enacting clause of subsection 5 of the act of 1907 were to stand, a person could not be convicted of violating, if it appears that he had complied with the provisions of sec. 8 of the act by producing a guaranty against adulteration signed by the person residing in the United States from whom the article was purchased.</p>