keep records, make reports, and permit inspection of books and records-for example, Baltimore and Ohio R. R. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (221 U. S. 612, 622-623); United States v. Darby (312 U. S. 100, 125); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling (327 U. S. 186); Shapiro v. United States (335 U. S. 1, 32–33); Fleming v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (114 F. 2d 384, 389–390 (C. A. 7), certiorari denied, 311 U. S. 690).

I can perceive no possible distinction in this regard between inspection of books and records, and inspection of sanitary conditions in a factory or warehouse. It would be highly anomalous to hold that the power to inspect a factory for sanitary conditions dangerous to health was less extensive than the power to inspect corporate books for violations of economic regulations. For the reasons given above, the right to inspect a factory, owned by a corporation engaged in processing articles of food for interstate commerce, stands on a very different footing from the right to enter a private home, on which this Court reserved decision in District of Columbia v. Little (339 U. S. 1).

For these reasons, the courts that have considered the question have sustained the inspection provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act against attack under the fourth and fifth amendments. See decision of the district court in United States against Cardiff and United States v. Crescent-Kelvan Co. (164 F. 2d 582 (C. A. 3)). To hold otherwise would seriously weaken an act vitally necessary for the protection of the national health. Factory inspection under the act, as under the Meat Inspection Act and like legislation, is not primarily a search for evidence to be used in criminal proceedings. It is rather a regulatory device which serves in part to advise the factory owner of conditions of which he was ignorant and to educate him as to proper methods and standards of sanitation, and which may result in warnings, voluntary action by the owner, and injunction or libel proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. It is, moreover, not only the most effective, but in many instances the only possible means of effectuating the aspect of the act which those charged with its enforcement consider their most important problem-the maintenance, by preventive as well as punitive means, of adequate sanitary conditions in establishments handling foods, drugs, and cosmetics. As addressed to such a situation, the relatively mild power of compulsory inspection of factories which the act authorizes cannot be said to be unreasonable or to violate the fourth and fifth amendments.

AN ANSWER TO MINORITY REPORT

The minority report accompanying the bill (H. R. 5740) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to protect the public health and welfare by providing certain authority for factory inspection, and for other purposes, begins with the statement that there is a "substantial question" as to whether Congress may grant to the Food and Drug Administration the inspection powers provided by the bill.

At another place it states it states that "whether there is constitutional authority for Federal inspection as provided for by section 704 has not been established with respect to this or any other Federal statute."

These statements, it should be noted, are phrased very carefully so as to avoid any direct categorical statement that Congress does not have the authority, under the Constitution, to grant the proposed inspection power. This is understandable, because it cannot be established that Congress lacks the power.

Since there are no judicial decisions and precedents to support a direct and positive allegation that the proposed grant of inspection authority is beyond the power of Congress, the method of attack which the minority report uses is to attempt to create doubts. In attempting to create these doubts, the minority report makes three main points.

The first deals with the numerous inspection statutes which Congress has already passed, and which are cited in the majority report-some of them having been in effect for many years.

The minority report states that these statutes can be "distinguished" from the grant of inspection power contained in the bill, that they are "not comparable."

These existing Federal statutes-30 in number-are then listed one by one, and certain factual statements are made as to each. The remarkable thing about these statements is that they merely describe the inspection authority granted and show that in each instance the grant of inspection authority is incidental to, and to make effective, the exercise of one of the broad, fundamental powers possessed by Congress-for example, the taxing power, the power over interstate commerce, the power over navigable waters, the national defense powers, the power to regulate and control the currency, and so on.

If there is any respect in which these statutes can be distinguished from the proposal in the bill, or in which they are not comparable, then the minority report has completely failed to point out what it is.

Actually, these statutes and the proposed inspection provision of the bill have one important thing in common. In each case Congress is exercising a broad, fundamental power-in the bill it is the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce-in order to provide for regulation of one kind or another; and in order to make such regulation effective Congress has found it necessary and appropriate to grant inspection powers. This point of comparability is so basic as to lead to only one conclusion: If the inspection statutes listed in the majority report are valid, then it follows that the inspection power contained in the bill may be granted to the Food and Drug Administration. minority report does not point to any court decision which holds invalid any of the inspection statutes listed.

The

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as

amended (21 U. S. C., sec. 374) is amended to read as follows:

"FACTORY INSPECTION

"SEC. 704. (a) For purposes of enforcement of this act, officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary, upon presenting appropriate credentials and a written notice to the owner, operator, or agent in charge, are authorized (1) to enter, at reasonable times, any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics are manufactured, processed, packed, or held, for introduction into interstate commerce or are held after such introduction, or to enter any vehicle being used to transport or hold such food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in interstate commerce; and (2) to

inspect, at reasonable times and within reasuch factory, warehouse, establishment, or vehicle and all pertinent equipment, finished and unfinished materials, containers, and labeling therein. A separate notice shall be given for each such inspection, but a notice shall not be required for each entry made during the period covered by the inspection. Each such inspection shall be commenced and completed with reasonable promptness.

sonable limits and in a reasonable manner,

"(b) Upon completion of any such inspection of a factory, warehouse, or other establishment, and prior to leaving the premises, the officer or employee making the inspection shall give to the owner, operator, or agent in charge a report in writing setting forth any conditions or practices observed by him which, in his judgment, indicate that any food, drug, device, or cosmetic in such establishment (1) consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or (2) has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health. A copy of such report shall be sent promptly to the Secretary.

"(c) If the officer or employee making any such inspection of a factory, warehouse, or other establishment has obtained any sample in the course of the inspection, upon completion of the inspection and prior to leaving the premises he shall give to the owner, operator, or agent in charge a receipt describing the samples obtained.

"(d) Whenever in the course of any such inspection of a factory or other establishment where food is manufactured, processed, or packed, the officer or employee making the inspection obtains a sample of any such food, and an analysis is made of such sample for the purpose of ascertaining whether such food consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or is otherwise unfit for food, a copy of the results of such analysis shall be furnished promptly to the owner, operator, or agent in charge."

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi: Page 3, line 18, strike out the quotation mark at the end of the line and insert the following:

"(e) If the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a factory, warehouse, or establishment referred to in subsection (a) refuses to permit entry or inspection, the officer or employee may apply to the United States district court having territorial jurisdiction of the factory, warehouse, or establishment for an order compelling inspection. Such order may be issued in the discretion of the court upon a showing of probable cause, supported by affidavit, that adulterated or misbranded products are being manufactured, processed, packed, or held in such factory, warehouse, or establishment for introduction into interstate commerce, or are being held therein after introduction into interstate commerce, or that a violation

of this act is being committed within such factory, warehouse or establishment."

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

so as to strike that part dealing with inspecting premises to see that they are section 2 of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from

Yes.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr. HARRIS. That is section 2. Section 2 starts in line, 19.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. That is right, through the first sentence of that. It is a technical amendment that changes the number into the subsection (f).

Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman is not attempting to strike out section 2 with his amendment?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. No, I am not attempting to strike out section 2. The language of section 2 of that amendment-I think it was read by the Clerkwould be labeled "Subsection (n)."

Mr. HARRIS. If I understood the reading of the amendment it was page 3, line 19, strike out lines 19 through 22. That means you are striking out section 2.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The language I have here is of very little effect and in fact has no effect, as the gentleman knows; and I see no point in his trying to split hairs, because he knows the thing I am amending is in subsection (e). If the gentleman wants to ask unanimous consent that my amendment

be so amended as to let it stop at the end of line 18 I would have no objection. Mr. HARRIS. I think the gentleman misunderstands me. My purpose is to clear it up. I thought the gentleman

had an amendment to paragraph (d) on page 3. I was just trying to clear it up.

I hope the gentleman understands.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I would like to

make certain as to just what the amendment is that the gentleman is offering.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. If the gentleman will just give me a chance to explain it, I will.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I have heard the explanation many times. What I want to know is the language of the amendment; what does it strike out? And what does it leave in? Or just what does it do? Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment may be read again by the Clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

The Clerk again read the amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, in view of the confusion which has arisen because of the latter part of my amendment, which is a technical change and has nothing to do with the body of the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be amended

There was no objection.

Mr.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Chairman, under the bill as it has been presented to the House, representatives of the Food and Drug Administration are given blanket search warrant authority to enter upon the private property of individuals engaged in the manufacture or processing of food for the purpose of making inspections. The refusal of a factory owner to permit one of these inspectors to come upon his property constitutes, under this bill, a crime for which he may be hauled into court, convicted, put in jail, and made to pay a fine.

I have no quarrel with the purpose of this legislation. The purpose of it is to provide a means by which these factories can be inspected, and I am certainly in accord with that, but there are a few other matters we have to reconcile in meeting that need; particularly must we bring it within the scope of the constitutional authority given to the Federal Government.

Let me read the fourth amendment to you. Listen to the language. Can the intent be any clearer?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In my opinion, that amendment carries with it, by implication, the premise that any search made against the will of the individual who owns the property searched could not be a reasonable search under any circumstances unless made under the authority of a warrant issued upon probable cause supported by oath

or affirmation.

Let us see what the amendment I have offered actually does.

sanitary, to go into court before he undertook his inspection and get a search warrant?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. If he is refused entry onto a man's private property, I think he has no legal alternative but to attempt to get a search warrant in order to enter. I think that the right to free and uninterrupted enjoyment of private property, and the right to be secure in his person, is one of the most valuable and sacred guaranties under our Constitution.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SPRINGER. In answer to the gentleman from Illinois, I think the Supreme Court of the United States decided that issue last fall in a decision right here in the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

(Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi (at the request of Mr. SPRINGER) was granted 5 additional minutes.)

Mr. SPRINGER. In a District of Columbia case, the Supreme Court of the United States, in saying that an inspector could not go on the premises and inspect for plumbing or anything of that nature against the will of the property owner, held such entry to be in violation of the fourth amendment. So that point has already been decided by the Supreme Court within the last year, right here in the District of Columbia.

Actually, the amendment that I am offering provides a remedy-a means by which compulsory inspection can be had-and that is certainly consistent with purposes of this bill. But, the amendment that I am offering provides what, in my opinion, is a legal means of compelling inspection of these factories and plants as opposed to the doubtful method carried in the bill. In my opinion, if this legislation is enacted without the amendment that I have offered, I have no doubt but that the Supreme Court will invalidate the entire law on its first court test. There are many reasons for that; many reasons. Several basic constitutional questions are involved here. Constitutional safeguards and requirements appear to be circumvented. What about the inspector who moves into the man's property against his will? The man says, "No, you cannot come in" and the inspector says, "If I do not get in, I will see that you are put in jail." Fearing such acMr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the tion, the owner admits him, and he finds gentleman yield?

The bill, as now written, provides that the agent shall seek entry to a factory for the purpose of making inspection. Under the present bill, if he is refused permission to enter the building, then the owner who refuses subjects himself to criminal prosecution; he makes a criminal out of himself. Under my amendment, what would happen in case the factory owner refused? The agent or inspector would have the right then to go to the nearest Federal district judge, swear out an affidavit stating that he has probable cause to believe adulterated or misbranded goods are being held in violation of the law. Then the court, as in similar cases where such procedure must be followed, may issue a warrant and permit the agent to enter the place in accordance with the law, as set out in the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. YATES. Would the gentleman compel a health inspector, who works for a municipality and has the job of

evidence of other law violations on which to base a criminal prosecution; have we not, in effect, compelled the owner to give evidence against himself? Certainly he had admitted the agent under duress and under threat of prosecution.

You would compel him to testify against himself, contrary to every principle of American law.

a bank, he could get a search warrant to examine the bank?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. No.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNGER. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, would that not make the law a voluntary inspection again?

I do

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. not see how that can be so construed, for the reason that the inspector may go to the Federal district court and, on signing an affidavit to the effect that he has probable cause to believe that there is a violation of the law on those premises, then the court may in its discretion issue a search warrant. He can go right in there under authority of the warrant. When he goes in to inspect under the authority of a search warrant, certainly that is compulsory inspection. So far as I am concerned, the refusal of the factory owners to permit the inspection under reasonable conditions would constitute valid grounds for the issuance of a search warrant. Of course, that would be in the discretion of the court, as it

should be.

Mr. YOUNGER. Did not the inspector have the right to apply for a search warrant under the old law before it went to the Supreme Court?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I just do not know. I presume that we would not need this legislation if that were true.

Let me ask the gentleman this question, and he is one of my very respected friends and an able colleague on this committee: Can he, or any other member of the committee, deny that this bill gives the Food and Drug Administration a blanket search warrant authority to go into and on the premises of any factory in the United States that manufactures food, whether the owner consents or not?

Mr. YOUNGER. Yes; it is the purpose of the committee, set forth in the report, that this be a compulsory inspection, but it is a very limited inspection. All you have to do is to read the committee report and find the limitations we put upon it.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The gentleman has very frankly and honestly answered the question that I asked of him, and he has made my argument for me.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

The

Mr. HALE. It seems to me the gentleman is confusing search, which is one thing, the word as used in the fourth amendment of the Constitution, and inspection, which is quite a different thing. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. gentleman knows that when these inspectors go in there they are permitted to make a search of the man's papers, his files, and his effects, and if they find evidence of violation of the law they can bring a criminal prosecution.

Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman go to the point of saying that if a national bank examiner were refused admission to

impliedly contracts with the Federal Government, as the gentleman knows, agreeing to comply with the terms of the Federal law and inspection.

Mr. HALE. Why does not the man who manufactures food imply consent to comply with the terms of the Federal law?

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The gentleman knows that the Federal Government has the right to bar this man's produce from being entered into the channels of interstate commerce, if it does not meet the standards required under the law. The point I am attemptunder the law. The point I am attempting to argue is that government has not the right to send its agents onto a man's private property without authority of a warrant or cause, as specified in the fourth amendment.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the gentleman from Mississippi has made an able case for himself. I think it is apparent to everybody on this committee who has gone into it that this case will certainly, when it goes to the Supreme Court, be a very close decision. I think that anybody who has gone into this question of search and seizure and reviewed all the legal authority fully realizes that this case will go to the Supreme Court some time in the near future.

I think those of us who favor this bill rely upon certain precedents for the maintenance of our position. There have been, I believe, about 30 to 35 States in which factory inspection laws have already been enacted.

I believe a goodly number of those have already been taken to the supreme courts of the States in which they have been enacted, and they have been upheld by the supreme courts of those respective States. I know of no State of my own knowledge where a factory inspection law has been held unconstitutional. Now there may be some but I do not know of any.

Therefore, it is upon those precedents that we believe the Supreme Court will maintain that in the public interest a factory inspection law on a national scale, under the Pure Food and Drug Administration, should be maintained. I think there are certainly very practical reasons, if the Supreme Court comes to that point of view, as to why it should be done. It is going to be almost impossible as time passes to have a Pure Food and Drug Administration unless you can have some kind of reasonable inspection. If you are going to go to the door of a factory, and, then have to go to the United States District Court and get a search warrant, it is going to make it possible for those people who are fly-by-night racketeers in the food industry to cover up whatever might be wrong in their factories.

That is the purpose, of course, of this particular law-to make it impossible for them to do that. I say to you that all of the legitimate people in industry who appeared before the committee wanted

this kind of law because they believe that they were in a legitimate business. They were doing business as it should be done, and wanted to keep their factories clean. The legitimate people in the food industry want this kind of a law because they believe in some kind of reasonable inspection. They are all manufacturing pure food, and in the distribution of their product to the public, they believe they had to have some reasonable kind of inspection, so that those people who were doing a sort of "racketeering business," as I believe it was described before the committee, would be kept out.

With industry endorsing this bill, and with the reasons that have been shown by the majority of the committee, I believe the bill ought to be passed. I think the Constitution question is going to be a close one. It is my opinion at this time, based upon the precedents we already have in the States, that the law will be declared constitutional. I think that is about the best opinion that any of us on this committee can express at this time.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield.

Mr. HINSHAW. As a matter of fact, about 99 percent of the industries involved prefer this method to the method of swearing out a warrant for search and seizure, is that not correct?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. HINSHAW. That would mean going to the court and obtaining a warrant, and it means there may be a certain amount of unfavorable publicity attendant upon such procedure.

Mr. SPRINGER. That was one of the reasons brought out in the committee by some of the witnesses, and what the gentleman from California says is true. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield.

Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman seems to have some feeling that this might be a very close question as to its constitutionality, in contravention of the fourth amendment. The gentleman is aware of the Meat Inspection Act, is he not? Mr. SPRINGER. I am.

Mr. HARRIS. That act provided for the inspection of meat introduced into interstate commerce.

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, it did.

Mr. HARRIS. Meat is a food processed for consumption by the public, is that not true?

Mr. SPRINGER. That is correct. Mr. HARRIS. That act provided for Federal inspection, did it not?

Mr. SPRINGER. It did.

Mr. HARRIS. Is it not true that the Supreme Court has passed on the Meat Inspection Act, and held it to be constitutional?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; that is true. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield.

Mr. YATES. I have had occasion to check with the clerk of the committee on the decision which the gentleman cited in response to the question I asked the gentleman from Mississippi. The clerk advises me from the facts in that

case, it was a case in which the inspector for rooming houses inspected a room in which the proprietor lived. The Court said that he had not followed the procedure set forth in the law for him to follow. There was no constitutional question involved in that case. Therefore, the example of this case was not applicable to the question I asked the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. SPRINGER. I think when you read the particular case, you have to come to a rather strong conclusion that there was serious doubt in the mind of the court as to whether or not that law was constitutional. If you interpret it strictly, what the gentleman says is true, but that is not my interpretation of what I think the Supreme Court meant by that, although they did not have to decide the second point which you mentioned.

Mr. YATES. Does the gentleman have any doubts that the courts will sustain the constitutionality of inspection by a food inspector of the sanitary condition of a store or premises of that kind?

Mr. SPRINGER. That they would? Mr. YATES. Yes, as a health measure, as a police measure.

Mr. SPRINGER. It is purely a question of how the Court interprets search and seizure. We went into that matter in the committee, and there was not any doubt that the Supreme Court had interpreted it—we had the decisions before us-that it did not make any difference whether it was your home or your business. The right to be free from search

and seizure is just the same, whether it is your business or your home.

The gen

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SPRINGER. I yield. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. tleman has told us that this is a close question, but the gentleman has not told us—at least I have not heard him say what is the foundation for his thinking that it is constitutional.

Mr. SPRINGER. It is based upon the fact that we have had these factory inspection laws in the various States which have been interpreted to be constitutional, in those States where the Fourth Amendment has been raised in the State courts. The Supreme Court passed on the question which the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS] mentioned a minute ago, and that, to my mind, is a good precedent.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I am interested in the theory upon which this hinges. We must invoke some Federal power. What is the Federal power on which this hinges?

Mr. SPRINGER. To inspect?

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. The Federal Government has the power to inspect?

Mr. SPRINGER. It does, I think It does, I think based upon these previous decisions.

Mr. YATES. Is it not the commerce clause that is the answer to the question the gentleman is raising?

Mr. SPRINGER. It is a question whether or not the products are involved in interstate commerce. Yesterday I explained that they had no power in the State of Florida where the product originated within the boundaries of the State

spection than this particular amendment which has just been presented, unless it had been an amendment to repeal

that effect. Any one who is familiar with

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON] be given 2 additional minutes, so that I might ask him a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

and Drug Administration or any other of the several inspection statutes that are in effect in this Nation will certainly agree with the statement I have just made.

The question of search and seizure does not apply to this situation or type of inspection at all. It may be that some may have been interested enough to have studied the background of the

background of that amendment would

Mr. HARRIS. In further reference to the colloquy between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] and myself a moment ago regarding the constitutionality of this bill, and the comparison that I made with the Federal Meat Inspection Act, this is comparable to that act, because this applies to only such products as are processed and manufactured for interstate shipment; is that not right?

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is right.

Mr. HARRIS. And it is similar to the Meat Inspection Act, because that act applies only when meat is prepared for interstate shipment; is that not true?

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is true.

Mr. HARRIS. And in either case, when it is being prepared for intrastate use, then the Federal act does not apply;

is that not true?

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is right.

Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for the gentleman from Mississippi

[Mr. WILLIAMS] and I do not say that in any perfunctory way. I have a very real affection and respect for him as a result of my association with him on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. So that in what I may say, as to the effect of this amendment that he has offered, it is not intended in any way to indicate any lack of confidence in his sincerity or good intent.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOLVERTON. I yield.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I appreciate the gentleman's words very much. Let me say that the feeling is mutual; that the fact that we may have different opinions on this legislation does not lessen the respect that I have for my chairman.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I thank the gentleman. That is the kind of friendly relationship we have on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

The gentleman from Mississippi in presenting his amendment, said that he would probably be accused of offering an amendment that would scuttle the bill. I do not know from what source he got that information, but at least I think it will be agreed without any doubt whatsoever that if this amendment should be adopted effective food and drug inspection is scuttled and out the window. I cannot realize that any amendment could be offered that would amendment could be offered that would more effectually kill food and drug in

tended to apply in a case such as we have in this bill and with the provisions that we have thrown around it to protect the rights of those industries inspected.

As to the real purpose of search and seizure, read the Declaration of Independence or any of the documents prior to and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or thereafter and you will realize that the search and seizure provided for in the fourth amendment was for a specific purpose. It was to correct a situation that had grown up as a result of the conduct of the King's officers toward the inhabitants of the colonies. Their conduct could be likened to what would apply in a Russian system of government, as we know it today. That is about what it was under King George That is what brought about the necessity immediately before our independence. for this particular type of amendment. A consideration of the subject from the standpoint of the historical background will demonstrate there is nothing to in

dicate that there is any reason to believe that provisions such as we have put in charge that it is unconstitutional. this bill would subject the bill to the

Yesterday I took time to relate to the committee at least 30 instances in which

similar inspection laws have been passed and upheld by a long line of Supreme Court decisions. Today reference was made to one of the most outstanding, the Meat Inspection Act; but that is only 1 of 30 which if I had time I would recite to you again. They all contain identically the same provision or approximately so that this bill contains. Through all the years from the very beginning of our Government until the present is there anyone who is listening to me at this moment who could rise and give by name and citation any case of the Supreme Court that would uphold the contention unconstitutionality that has been made? I made that challenge and the same request in the committee when this bill was under discussion, and up to this moment there has never been such a case given to us, nor does such a case exist. I regret that in the remarks I made earlier today I did not have opportunity to go into the question as fully as I would have liked to do. However, I briefed this whole subject and took the whole subject point by point and gave in each instance the United States Supreme Court decisions that sustained every point that I made with respect to the constitutionality of this act.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has again expired.

(On the request of Mr. HESELTON, Mr. WOLVERTON was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLVERTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I am interested in finding out the power which is relied upon. I asked this question of a previous speaker and he said that the power relied upon was that under the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Act. I am trying to learn, I am not trying to be a heckler here. Is it the gentleman's position that power is given under the Federal Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, raise an army, and so forth, and it necessarily follows from that that the fourth amendment does not apply and the right of inspection is untrammelled regardless of the fourth amendment in such fields that the Government is given power specifically in that situation?

Mr. WOLVERTON. No.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. If that is the answer, explain to us why it is they have the power in this particular instance?

Mr. WOLVERTON. I do not take any such position as indicated by the gentleman.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I would like an answer as to what position the gentleman does take.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I think my answer is plain enough.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. It is not to me.

Mr. WOLVERTON. If the gentleman will repeat his question I will answer it again.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I am interested in finding out from where the power stems for the inspection in this particular field.

Mr. WOLVERTON. The Interstate and Foreign Commerce Act clause of the Constitution.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Is it the gentleman's position that the Constitution gives power to the Federal Government to control a particular field of activity?

Mr. WOLVERTON. Yes, but that does not imply that it does away with the fourth amendment in cases where it applies, absolutely no.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. It makes inapplicable the fourth amendment?

Mr. WOLVERTON. No, it does not. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Is it the gentleman's position that the fourth amendment does apply to this?

Mr. WOLVERTON. No, it does not apply to this particular situation before

Mr. WOLVERTON. Then the gentleman certainly must have realized it does not apply to a case like this.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I wish I had the time to show the gentleman the decided cases which I think would convince him. I realize his sincerity and I am certain with that sincerity and a desire to know the law that is applicable, he would be convinced if I had time to read them to him. I regret that because of brevity of time I cannot at this time.

situation where there is a violation of the law on the premises, such as has been pointed out, not having anything to do with interstate commerce or the inspection of or law pursuant to that, then in those cases the fourth amendment does apply. Is that the position? Mr. WOLVERTON. That is about it. Under search-and-seizure procedure, a police officer can break through a door,

fiscate. He can take property. He can

Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact, in further response to the question of the gentleman from Florida, that the Congress has the right to regulate the flow of interstate shipments? That is what this is here. It is providing a standard means of inspection of goods or products that go into interstate shipments. That is the authority that we get here by this proposed legislation.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Yes. I trust that everyone will bear in mind this is a statute which is designed to protect the life and health of our people. Could anything be more commendable than that? When you consider it from the standpoint of search and seizure, it is not in the same category as a police official who has reason to believe that there is a gambling or other unlawful enterprise being carried on in a designated house or place. There is nothing in the bill that would indicate that there is any such unlawful purpose or activity being carried on that is to be the subject of a disclosure. The search and seizure theory just does not apply. The fourth amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

There is nothing in this bill that violates that right. This bill relates to factories, it relates to warehouses, and so forth. It has no relation to house or homes or person or property in the sense it is used in the fourth amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, reserv

ing the right to object, I wonder if they are going to cut off debate where some of us will not even get 3 minutes?

Mr. SPRINGER. That I do not know. I am not in favor of it.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I won

der if the chairman would like to endeavor to get some understanding as to

time?

Mr. WOLVERTON. I would like to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

provide for any such power as that.

As a matter of fact, all we provide for is the opportunity to go in. Furthermore, before a search-and-seizure warrant is issued, there must be probable cause. Will you tell me how any conscientious officer representing the Food and Drug Administration, even though engaged in an effort to protect the lives of our people and their health, could conscientiously take an oath that the law is being violated in a place before he has been in it? And yet, under the strict procedure of the fourth amendment, there would be only one way that he could do it, and that would be by snooping in there and getting evidence, the same as a prosecutor would get evidence on which he would base a search warrant. You would have to have the country filled with snoopers who would go into these places to see whether the law was being violated and then get a warrant issued on the basis of probable cause. Now, that is not desirable, nor is it the intent to obtain warrants for arrest and all that follows. It is not expected. The whole purpose of this act is to protect not only the lives and the health of our people but, in addition to that, to give the processor and the manufacturer an opportunity for his white alley, so to speak, because a report must be made to him of what the inspector finds, and that gives the manufacturer an opportunity to correct the situation, if he wishes to. The provisions of the act can and will prove helpful and not harmful if the manufacturer so chooses. He can be charged with no offense, because, as has already been explained, under the law, you can process, you can manufac

ture adulterated food, but so long as you keep it in your own place of business there is no offense committed. It is only when adulterated or improper food or drugs go into interstate commerce that it becomes an offense. Thus, the full purpose of this act is not only to protect the lives and the health of our people but also to inform the manufacturers, in order that they may correct what is found to be unlawful or objectionable.

amendment proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS] is intended to carry out the recommendation made by a minority of three members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the

Mr. WOLVERTON. Iyield to the gentleman from Illinois.

istration should not be given the power to inspect factories and other establishments where food and drugs are manu