Minnesota v. Barber

Citations

• 136 U.S. 313
• 10 S. Ct. 862
• 34 L. Ed. 455
• 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2215

Syllabus

<p>The statute of. Minnesota approved April 16, 1889, entitled “ an act for the protection of the public health by providing- for inspection, before slaughtering, of cattle, sheep and swine designed for slaughter for human food,” is unconstitutional and void so far as it requires, as a condition of sales in Minnesota of fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb or pork, for human food, that the animals, from which such meats áre taken, shall have been inspected in that State before being slaughtered.</p> <p>In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect; and the presumption that it was enacted in good faith, for the purpose expressed in the title, cannot control the determination of the question whether it is, or is not, repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.</p> <p>This statute of Minnesota, by its necessary operation, practically excludes from the Minnesota market all fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb or pork, in whatever form, and although entirely sound, healthy and fit for human food, taken from animals slaughtered in other States; and as it thus directly tends to restrict the slaughtering of animals, whose meat is ’to be sold in Minnesota for human food, to those engaged in such business in that State, it makes such discrimination against the products and business of other States in favor of the products and business of Minnesota, as interferes with and burdens commerce among the several States.</p> <p>A law providing for the inspection of animals, whose meats are designed for human food, cannot be regarded as a rightful exertion of the police power of the State, if the inspection prescribed is of such a character, or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent the introduction into the State of sound meats, the product of animals slaughtered in other States.</p> <p>A burden imposed upon interstate commerce is not to he sustained simply because the statute imposing it applies alike to the