the other hand, it is certain that if foreign articles imported into New York are introduced into another State or Territory with a label or brand showing them to be of New York make or growth, such articles would be "falsely labeled or branded as to the State or Territory in which they are made, produced, or grown," and such introduction would be within both the letter and the spirit and purpose of the act.
In this respect Congress can interfere only with interstate trade. It can prevent the use of false labels of dairy or food products only when they become objects of commerce between different States or Territories. Hence, the prohibition is confined to articles introduced from one State or Territory into another. But this does not imply, nor is there anything to imply, that the prohibition is confined also to articles made, produced, or grown in the State or Territory from which they are introduced, or to articles of domestic origin. It is the use of false labels on dairy and food products in interstate commerce which is prohibited. And if it is interstate commerce, it is quite unimportant whether the articles falsely labeled were of domestic or foreign origin. If an imported article of foreign origin is labeled as of domestic origin, the article is "falsely labeled or branded as to the State or Territory in which it is made, produced, or grown;" and if such article, thus falsely labeled, is introduced from one State or Territory into another or the District of Columbia, it is a violation of the act. Nor does it make any difference in this respect whether the false label or brand be placed on the article before or after leaving the custom-house in a case of foregin importation.
If it were required, a familiar rule of construction might be invoked in support of this interpretation. Statutes should be construed in aid of their manifest purpose and object. And when it is considered that the sole purpose of this act is to prevent the use of false labels or brands of dairy or food products, when articles of interstate commerce, it is manifest that a construction which limits the prohibition to domestic articles would defeat rather than aid the purpose of the act. Indeed, the greater and more prevalent evil in this respect is not in falsely stating a particular State or Territory as the origin of a domestic article, but is the labeling of a foreign article as the product of some particular State or Territory, or vice versâ. This is the more serious and prevalent evil, and in my opinion is as certainly forbidden by the act referred to as is the labeling of an article of one State or Territory as being the product of another.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the act of July 1, 1902, applies not only to domestic articles, but also to those imported from foreign countries which are labeled as being of domestic origin.
Respectfully,
P. C. Knox, Attorney-General.
(F. I. D. 3.)
NOTICE TO EXPORTERS OF WINES.
A RECENT LAW PASSED BY THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
November, 1904.
The Argentine Republic has passed a new law relating to wines, and especially covering the conditions under which wines are to be imported into that country from foreign countries. There are many provisions of the law which should be known to the producers and exporters of wines from the United States. The full text of the new law of the Argentine Republic is given below:
Article 1. Only those wines obtained by the fermentation of fresh grapes, or simply
estacionado, will be considered as natural wines in the Argentine Republic.
