and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, and especially are in conflict with the Federal Food and Drugs Act.

Upon the argument here, the attack was centered upon the effect of Regulation 6, which, so far as pertinent, reads as follows: "Manufacturers of proprietary foods are required to state upon the label the names and percentages of the materials used, so far as is necessary to secure freedom from adulteration and misbranding: (1) In the case of syrups, the principal label shall state definitely, in conspicuous letters, the percentage of each ingredient, in the case of compounds, mixtures, imitations, or blends. When the name of the syrup includes the name of one or more of the ingredients, the preponderating ingredient shall be named first."

It will be convenient to deal first with the contention made under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not seriously insisted that there is a denial of the equal protection of the laws, and we see no ground for such a contention. There is no discrimination against plaintiff in error or its product, or against syrups as a class.

It is, however, urged that since plaintiff's syrup is a proprietary food, made under a secret formula and sold under its own distinctive name, and since it contains no deleterious or injurious ingredients, the effect of the reglation in requiring plaintiff to disclose upon the label the ingredients and their proportions amounts to a taking of its property without due process of law. Evidently the purpose of the requirement is to secure freedom from adulteration and misbranding; the mischief of misbranding being that purchasers may be misled with respect to the wholesomeness or food value of the compound. And it is too plain for argument that a manufacturer or vendor has no constitutional right to sell goods without giving to the purchaser fair information of what it is that is being sold. The right of a manufacturer to maintain

secrecy as to his compounds and processes must be held subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of its police power and in promotion of fair dealing, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth. Heath & Milligan Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338, 353; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 524; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 548-549; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 588; Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510, 514, 515; Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. v. Iowa, 242 U. S. 153, 159; Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297, 303.

We turn to the questions raised under the commerce clause and the act of Congress.

Although the Supreme Court in its opinion said nothing about interstate commerce, it cannot be doubted, in the state of the record, that defendants' activities against which relief was sought included incidental interference with plaintiff's interstate commerce in the "Mary Jane" syrup; and that the general judgment in favor of defendants amounts to an adjudication that the state law and regulations are to be enforced with respect to plaintiff's product indiscriminately, not only when sold and offered for sale in domestic commerce but also while in the hands of the importing dealers for sale in the original packages and hence, in contemplation of law, still in the course of commerce from State to State. The silence of the Supreme Court upon the subject cannot change the result in this regard. In cases of this kind, we are concerned not with the characterization or construction of the state law by the state court, nor even with the question whether it has in terms been construed, but solely with the effect and operation of the law as put in force by the State. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362; Kansas City &c. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 240 U. S. 227, 231; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219, 237; Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292, 294.

The question of repugnancy to the commerce clause may be treated (a) aside from federal legislation; and (b) in view of the "Food and Drugs Act" of Congress, June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768.

Upon this question, in both aspects, the judgment under review is clearly sustained by the decision of this court in Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, which is precisely in point. That case raised a question whether a statute of Indiana relating to concentrated commercial feeding stuffs for animals (Acts 1907, c. 206), which required the packages, when sold or offered for sale, to bear in a conspicuous place a tag or label having plainly printed on it in the English language (among other things) a guaranteed analysis stating the minimum of crude fat and crude protein, determined by a prescribed method, and the ingredients from which the concentrated commercial feeding stuff was compounded, as applied to sales of complainant's products in original packages by importing purchasers, constituted an unwarranted interference with interstate commerce, either independently of or in the light of the Food and Drugs Act of Congress. The court finding (p. 524) that the evident purpose of the Indiana statute was to prevent fraud and imposition in the sale of food for domestic animals; that its requirements were directed to that end and were not unreasonable; and that it was not aimed at interstate commerce, but without discrimination sought to promote fair dealing in the described articles of food; held (p. 528) that the statute was a lawful exercise of the police power of the State, including the required disclosure of the ingredients contained in feeding stuffs offered for sale in that State and the provision for their inspection and analysis. Upon the question whether there was any conflict with the act of Congress, after pointing out (p. 529) that the object of the latter act was to prevent adulteration and misbranding by prohibiting the introduction into any State from another

State of articles of food or drugs adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act, and that included in the definition of the term "food" were "all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound"; and (p. 531) that in the enumeration of the acts constituting a violation of the statute Congress had not included (as the Indiana statute did include) a failure to disclose the ingredients of the article, save in specific instances where morphine, opium, cocaine, or other substances particularly mentioned were present; and after reciting the provision of the federal act that an article "for the purposes of this Act" shall be deemed misbranded if the package or label bear any statement, design or device regarding it or the ingredients or substances it contains, which shall be false or misleading; the court proceeded to say (p. 532): "But this does not cover the entire ground. It is one thing to make a false or misleading statement regarding the article or its ingredients, and it may be quite another to give no information as to what the ingredients are. As is well known, products may be sold, and in case of so-called proprietary articles frequently are sold, under trade names which do not reveal the ingredients of the composition and the proprietors refrain from revealing them. Moreover, in defining what shall be adulteration or misbranding for the purposes of the Federal act, it is provided that mixtures or compounds known as articles of food under their own distinctive names, not taking or imitating the distinctive name of another article, which do not contain 'any added poisonous or deleterious ingredients' shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded if the name be accompanied on the same label or brand with a statement of the place of manufacture (88). Congress has thus limited the scope of its prohibitions. It has not included that at which the Indiana statute aims. Can it be said that Congress, nevertheless,

has denied to the State, with respect to the feeding stuffs coming from another State and sold in the original packages, the power the State otherwise would have to prevent imposition upon the public by making a reasonable and non-discriminatory provision for the disclosure of ingredients, and for inspection and analysis? If there be such denial it is not to be found in any express declaration to that effect. Undoubtedly Congress, by virtue of its paramount authority over interstate commerce, might have said that such goods should be free from the incidental effect of a state law enacted for these purposes. But it did not so declare. There is a proviso in the section defining misbranding for the purposes of the act that 'nothing in this Act shall be construed' as requiring manufacturers of proprietary foods which contain no unwholesome added ingredient to disclose their trade formulas 'except in so far as the provisions of this Act may require to secure freedom from adulteration or misbranding' (§ 8). We have already noted the limitations of the provisions referred to. And it is clear that this proviso merely relates to the interpretation of the requirements of the act, and does not enlarge its purview or establish a rule as to matters which lie outside its prohibitions. Is, then, a denial to the State of the exercise of its power for the purposes in question necessarily implied in the Federal statute? For when the question is whether a Federal act overrides a state law, the entire scheme of the statute must of course be considered and that which needs must be implied is of no less force than that which is expressed. If the purpose of the act cannot otherwise be accomplished-if its operation within its chosen field else must be frustrated and its provisions be refused their natural effect-the state law must yield to the regulation of Congress within the sphere of its delegated power. [Citing cases.] But the intent to supersede the exercise by the State of its police power as to matters not covered by the Federal legislation