OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable George n. cox
state Health orrhw
Auetln, Texae
./
mir will aakfmfledge ‘rsoe%it or your letter 0r
June 81, 191443,regarding thq constitutionality or House
Bill 825, e gsnera@ogd-i, drugs and aosti?tlcs eat intro-
duced but not mydtsqfat ehy Regular EMsion of the 46th
Leglsle turo . \ ‘,, ‘>. . ..
‘\\ \
With nn&a&r: the &ur& here been Tory liberal
.in oonrtru$rigvmaotnh~ts Qsq%&md to proteot the publio
health u&m the eta& .polSjr pliirer. Xx parts Vaughan,
93 Cd&’ m J&3, 240 S1~W.,,6?3; Cozlns ~8’. state, 09
Crlm.,4to 4’ 92; 28!W3. w. X%B. Dslegatlons or authority to
boar& o f health-~ ar& ,_seldofi held unwarrented. See 12 R. 0.
I,. 1206.
In the -*i&d or rood end drug lrgialation, uhllr
eneatmnte or the state must not aonrliat with superior fed-
eral legislation, a broad lattitude is allowed the stats in
proteoting its altizena from adulterated, impure or miabrand-
ed arti.ales In raopact to purely lntraetate transaotions if
the enaetnwnt does not burden or interfere with interstate
eomerce. Royal Baking Powder compeny vs. Enrerson (C.C .A.
xck..l020) 270 Fed. 429, appeal dlaniased (1922), 43 Sup.
Honorable George w. COX, Page 2
Ct. 166, 200 U.S. 762, 67 L. Ed. 96; MoDermott vs. State
or Wisoonsin (1913) 288 u. s. 156, 33 sup. ct. 431, 57 L.
Ed. 754, Ann. Cas, 1915a, 39, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 984. In
the case or H.B. 226 a studlous erfort seems to have bern
made to avoid aontllot with the Bsderal Food and Drugs Act,
62 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C.A. Seas. 301-302.
Consequently, It is our opinion, and you are re-
speotrully advised that so far as we oan asoertain rrom a
oarerul study of H. B. 225 without haring an opportunity to
consider its relation to the multitude of diverse fact sit-
uatlons whlah might arise In its application, the bill does
not offend the State or Federal Constitutions insofar aa it
arreots Intrastate transactions.
Yours vdry truly
ATTORNEY
CENERALOF TE$AS
BY
Asafstant
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion