Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936)

U.S. Supreme Court, (March 02, 1936)

Docket number: 2
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20018058
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018058

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard C. Sylvester, Defendant-Appellant., 605 F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1979)

Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1: Privileges and immunities of citizenchip, due process and equal protection

U.S. Supreme Court - Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court BAYSIDE FISH FLOUR CO. v. GENTRY, 297 U.S. 422 (1936)

[Page 297 U.S. 422, 424]

and shipping it in interstate and foreign commerce; and it is so sold and shipped and is used as food in the United States and foreign countries. Sardines are a migratory fish found in great numbers in the Pacific Ocean beyond the three-mile limit as well as within that limit. So far as known, they spawn upon the open seas. In the process of reducing the fish, appellant uses a portion for producing flour for human consumption, the remainder being converted into a meal used for chicken feed, and into fertilizer, fish oil, and other nonedible substances.

Sardines caught in the same way are also purchased by packers, who clean, cook, and can or preserve them for human food, using in that process only a part of the fish and utilizing the remainder for reduction into nonedible products.

The provisions of the Fish and Game Code which appellees threaten to enforce against appellant and those necessary to be considered in that connection are copied in the margin. [Footnote 1] The bill alleges that appellees will pre-

[Page 297 U.S. 422, 430]

v. Monterey Fish Products Co., 195 Cal. 548, 557-559, 234 P. 398, 38 A.L.R. 1186. If the Legislature was of the view-as evidently it was-that the process of packing on the whole would not interfere with the effectuation of this policy while the process of reduction would do so, unless carefully limited to prevent excessive operations, we are unable to perceive any reason for saying that such view was without reasonable basis. By the process of packing-that is, canning or preserving-fish, the original form of the edible portions of the fish is not destroyed as it is by the process of reduction, by which those portion are broken down into a loose meal or flour. In the latter case it is obvious that the product may be readily diverted to other purposes than human consumption, such as chicken feed, fertilizer, etc. It is equally obvious that such a diversion is not likely to happen in the case of canning or preserving, where the edible portions retain their original solid form. The state also points out that the process of reduction is simple, and the quantity which can be reduced in a given period of time greatly exceeds what can be utilized by packing, which is a much slower and more complicated process. These differences are enough to bring the classification within the permissible range of state power, so far as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned.

We have considered the arguments of appellant tending to a different conclusion than that which we have reached; but at most these arguments do no more than demonstrate that the question is debatable. And, if so, the effect of the action of the state Legislature in passing the statute was to decide this debatable question against the view now advanced by appellant; and since we are unable to say that such a determination by the Legislature is clearly unfounded, we are precluded from overturning it. Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 294, 44 S.Ct. 325.

Decree affirmed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 Section 1010, p. 480. Every person must procure a license for each plant or place of business to engage in the business of:

(a) Can ing, curing, preserving or packing fish, taken from the waters of this State or brought into this State in a fresh condition.

(b) Manufacturing fish scrap, fish meal, fish oil, chicken feed or fertilizer from fish or fish offal. ...

Section 1060, p. 484. As used in this article:

(a) 'Reduction plant' means any plant used in the reduction of fish into fish flour, fish meal, fish scrap, fertilizer, fish oil or other fishery products or by-products.

(b) 'Packer' means any person canning fish or preserving fish by the common methods of drying, salting, pickling or smoking.

(c) 'Fish offal' means the heads, viscera, and other parts of fish taken off in preparing for canning or preserving.

Section 1064, p. 485. It is unlawful to cause or permit any deterioration or waste of any fish taken in the waters of this State, or brought into this State, or to take, receive or agree to receive more fish than can be used without deterioration, waste or spoilage. Except as allowed by this code, it is unlawful to use any fish, or part thereof, except fish offal, in a reduction plant or by a reduction process.

Section 1065, p. 485. Sardines may be taken for use in a reduction plant, or by a packer, only in accordance with the provisions of this article, as follows: In districts 4, 4 3/4, 18, 19, 20, 20A, and 21 between November 1 and March 31; elsewhere in the State between August 1 and February 15. This section does not prohibit the taking of sardines for the purpose of salting, curing, smoking or drying or for the purpose of packing in cans commonly known as quarter-pound or square cans less than 10 ounces in net weight; provided, that in a ten-ounce can, fish of a size of not less than eight fish to the can may be used, and there shall be added to the commonly known quarter-pound can not less than one ounce of olive oil or a commercial salad oil, and a proportionately larger amount of such oil to the larger sizes of cans.

Section 1066, p. 485. Any person engaged in canning sardines may take and use in a reduction plant thirty-two and one-half per cent of the amount of sardines actually received at such canning plant during each calendar month.

Section 1068, p. 486. The commission may grant a revocable permit, subject to such restrictions, rules or regulations as the commission may prescribe, to take and use fish by a reduction or extraction process. No reduction of fish shall be permitted which may tend to deplete the species, or result in waste or deterioration of fish.

Section 1070, p. 486. Persons engaged in preserving sardines by the common methods of drying, salting, smoking or pickling may use in a reduction plant or by reduction process such sardines, or fish delivered mixed with sardines, as are unfit for drying, salting, smoking or pickling, which are not intentionally taken into the plant in a condition unfit for processing for human consumption.

Other documents:
neff vs ford 5th cir 1998 | HARDEE\ S et al v BAILEY. 41382#180 Ga App 332 41382#349 SE2d 211 1986 | GILES v. THE STATE., 239 Ga. 835, 239 S.E.2.d 25 (1977) | Antonio James Petitioner-Appellant v Robert H Butler Sr. Warden Louisiana Stat... | Mas importante el estilo que el sistema | ACUERDO de 14 de febrero de 2008, de la Delegacion Provincial de Malaga, para la notificacion por edicto de Resolucion de Desamparo a dona Linda Rodriguez Diaz. | case of tribunal superior de justicia - barcelona, cataluña - sala de lo contencioso-administrativo, of february 28, 2003 | El Tribunal Superior recuerda al Ayuntamiento que debe reparar con urgencia las calles rotas | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Sevilla Andalucia Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of March 31 1999 | notas sobre la responsabilidad empresarial por infracción de las normas de la seguridad social y de prevención.