Dehne was manager of the store, in a position of responsibility, the others were merely clerks; the business was carried on under his direction, as agent for the corporate defendant. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of To the skimmed milk thus obtained was added a sufficient quantity of cottonseed oil to replace the butter fat extracted with the cream. 110), wherein he found, as a fact, that the plaintiff's products are wholesome. The amendment limited the ability of states to interfere with the privileges or immunities, due process right, or right to equal protection of citizens. Meat Products, Inc., for $15.00. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment on the authority of an earlier case in the same court, United States v. Carolene Products Co., D.C., 7 F.Supp. The cases, in turn, were placed in the warehouse at Warsaw. Carolene Products made milk.It didn't make good milk. Payment for the goods was made to the office at Litchfield, checks being banked with a rubber-stamp endorsement of the Carolene Products Company. There may be a legitimate answer, not in the record, but only one occurs to me, and that is that Hauser and Hartke knew "Carolene" violated the filled milk act and organized the company to protect the Litchfield Creamery Company from a violation of the law. 1246, 18 U.S.C. Any person violating any provision of sections 61 and 62 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. "(c) The term `filled milk' means any milk, cream, or skimmed milk, whether or not condensed, evaporated, concentrated, powdered, dried, or desiccated, to which has been added, or which has been blended or compounded with, any fat or oil other than milk fat, so that the resulting product is in imitation or semblance of milk, cream, or skimmed milk, whether or not condensed, evaporated, concentrated, powdered, dried, or desiccated. In his majority opinion for the Court, Associate Justice Harlan F. Stone wrote that economic regulations were "presumptively constitutional" under a deferential standard of review known as the â¦ If the purpose is legitimate because public, it will not be defeated. For this reason I was constrained to hold that the defense of wholesomeness and high nutritive qualities was not available in a prosecution under this Statute. When construing and enforcing the provisions of said sections, the act, omission, or failure of any person acting for or employed by any individual, partnership, corporation, or association, within the scope of his employment or office, shall in every case be deemed the act, omission, or failure, of such individual, partnership, corporation, or association, as well as of such person.". Cancel anytime. 500 (S.D. Appellee was indicted for shipping 'Milnut,' a variant of milk that violated the act. We do not here have the case of a corporation engaged in a proper and legal enterprise with an occasional violation of Federal law resulting therefrom. It was then homogenized; that is, it was forced under great pressure through small openings, resulting in the breaking up of the fat globules in the cottonseed oil and distributing the same evenly through the entire body of the resulting mixture, thus insuring that when this product was canned the oil would not rise to the top but would remain suspended through the entire volume of milk. The case was brought here on appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. Carolene argued that the FMA was unconstitutional. In the year 1941, the Warsaw plant sold 440,000 cases, and the Litchfield plant, 1,150,000 cases, of Carolene. The district court granted Caroleneâs motion to dismiss, and the United States government appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. In this case Backun was convicted of transporting stolen merchandise of value in excess of $5,000 in interstate commerce, knowing it to have been stolen. Collins v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 574, 578; Parisi v. United States, 2 Cir., 279 F. 253, 255.' The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. There was also added a small quantity of high potency fish-liver oil to introduce vitamins A and D into the product. The case is authority for the proposition that since the opinion is extensively held that a general prohibition of sale of malt liquors whether intoxicating or not is necessary to suppress the sale of intoxicants, in the exercise of its police power a state may include within the prohibition innocent malt beverages. In addition, there is the testimony of Thompson, the Manager of the Warsaw plant, that Carolene could not be distinguished by the eye from condensed milk. The defendants, in their proffer, made a strong case for the wholesomeness and nutritive value of their product. Milnut was, briefly, a product resulting from the mixture of coconut oil, skimmed milk, and fish oils. 1943) on CaseMine. Carolene was accused of shipping a product called âMilnutâ that consisted of a compound of skim milk and coconut oil. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,000+ From the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until 1938, the Court articulated a variety of new legal doctrines and concepts â including substantive due process, liberty of contract, anâ¦ This same business was being carried out at the Litchfield plant; however, in this particular case, all shipments were actually made from Warsaw. Footnote 4 is a footnote to United States v.Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82L.Ed. United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) =20 Facts of the Ca= se =20 In 1923, Congress passed the Filled Milk Act, which prohibited the shipm= ent of "filled" milk (i.e. One of the most important United States Supreme Court decisions on federalism and the division of governmental power, New York v.United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), is all about garbage, specifically, radioactive waste.. After World War II, Congress began allowing private industry to get more involved in developing nuclear energy. Mr. Justice Butler must have felt that the majority opinion of the Court was deciding that such questions could not be raised as a defense, else there would have been no occasion for filing a separate though concurring opinion. But the trouble with these arguments is that they are addressed to the wrong forum. The United States indicted Carolene Products for shipping Milnut in interstate commerce. It also manufactured this one product, "Carolene," which it, for some reason, did not wish to sell under its own name, and for the sale of that one product organized a separate corporation. 682, 18 U.S.C.A. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, recognized the citizenship of African Americans who had been born in the United States and protected their rights as well as those of others. Therefore, under my ruling, 50% of the company's business was illegal. ___. It is declared that filled milk, as herein defined, is an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health, and its sale constitutes a fraud upon the public. The District Court for the District of Columbia obviously took the other view and was affirmed by the latter decision of the Supreme Court. De Bois and Charles H. Thompson disagreed over ________________. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an âAâ in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. No contracts or commitments. This defense, however, must be presented to Congress and not the Courts. Carolene Products Co. (defendant) owned a milk processing plant. The trial court took judicial notice, as did the District Court of the District of Columbia, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 51 F. Supp. This company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of general dairy products, including evaporated whole milk. Contributor Names Stone, Harlan Fiske (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) Created / â¦ Throughout this opinion all dates, when material, will be as of the year 1941, unless specifically stated otherwise. The product "Carolene" looked, tasted, and smelled like condensed whole milk and was of practically the same texture and consistency. Opinion for United States v. Carolene Products Co., 7 F. Supp. In the first place, it is admitted by the Government, at least in its brief, that there is no evidence to show that either of the individual defendants personally made or even had knowledge of the eight specific shipments complained of in this indictment. 500. "(a) The term `person' includes an individual, partnership, corporation, or association; "(b) The term `interstate or foreign commerce' means commerce (1) between any State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; (2) between points within the same State, Territory, or possession, or within the District of Columbia, but through any place outside thereof; or (3) within any Territory or possession, or within the District of Columbia; and. In 1923, Congress passed an act that prohibited the interstate shipment of skimmed milk mixed with any fat other than milk fat. 682. In the course of the opinion, Judge Rose, then on the District Court Bench, but sitting with Judges Goff and Pritchard on the Circuit Court of Appeals, said on page 58 of 204 F.: "A corporation can only act through human agencies. 110, 112, the District Court for the District of Columbia had before it the construction of this Statute as applying to this identical product; that is, "Carolene," to which high potency fish oil had been added. Approximately half of this total output was shipped in interstate commerce. It was stipulated that if called as witnesses, the Government Chemists Bornmann and Kunke would testify that they had analyzed and examined samples taken from each shipment charged in the indictment, and that each were virtually indistinguishable from evaporated milk in taste, color, odor, appearance, and consistency. We all know that many of our large concerns sell defective products, "seconds," by this means. Many of the pertinent facts were stipulated upon the trial of this case. 1246, 18 U. S. C. § 682. The question of the criminal liability of corporate officers for the acts of a corporation has been before the Courts many times. The United States government (plaintiff) indicted Carolene Products in district court for violating the FMA. In 1923, Congress passed the Filled Milk Act (FMA), which criminalized the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream. In the case of United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. at page 640): "This statement of the law is too narrow, and, if followed, would in many instances afford immunity to the chief offenders, the officers of the corporation, without whose assistance it would be impossible for the corporation to engage in the prohibited business. ; 31 Corpus Juris 740. Borgia v. United States, supra [9 Cir., 78 F.2d 550] at page 555.". Therefore, there is really no dispute as to the facts involved. Thirty-four years later, the successor company to Carolene Products Company successfully attacked the constitutionality of this Act as applied on the ground that the facts, which justified the decision at the time, ceased to exist. Fortunately for the Court this Statute has been construed in regard to the very product here involved. United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U. S. 144 (1938) This case belongs to a string of cases dating from the late nineteenth century involving substitute or imitation dairy products. Get United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp., 568 F.2d 240 (1977), United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Section 550, be held guilty as principals, and I now so hold them. milk with skimmed milk and vegetable oil added) through interstate commerce. There is no contention by the Government that the defendants' labels violate any Act of Congress or regulation passed thereunder, and the labeling question is completely outside of this case. The evidence showed that Backun in New York sold certain stolen silverware to one Zucker, who took it with him on a trip through the South and resold it there. U.S. Reports: United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). It is not necessary to have conviction that they should have been actually engaged in work upon the premises. United States v. Carolene Products Co. Citation304 U.S. 144, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. You're using an unsupported browser. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Learn more about Quimbeeâs unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Footnote 4. This same office was used by Hartke to transact his business in connection with the two companies. The decision was for Congress, not for a jury or court to make. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment on the authority of an earlier case in the same court, United States v. Carolene Products Co., D.C., 7 F.Supp. The defendant Charles Hauser was President of the Carolene Products Company; was one of the original incorporators thereof, and a director of that company. Since, for the purpose of this case, the distinction between the three products is entirely immaterial, I will refer to the company's product as "Carolene" throughout this opinion. They contend that in 1923 medical science knew very little about vitamins. United States v. Carolene Products 304 U. S. 144 (1938). Language: English The defendants, Carolene Products Company, a corporation, and Charles Hauser and William H. Hartke, individuals, were indicted at the October Term, 1942, at Wheeling, W.Va., for a violation of what is commonly known as the "Filled Milk Act of 1923, Â§ 1." A brief summary of some of the more important decisions might be enlightening. Both of these products are sold under the name of "Carolene." I, therefore, find that the evidence proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, Carolene to be in semblance of condensed milk. Get free access to the complete judgment in UNITED STATES v. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., (N.D.W.Va. The defendants contended that the corporate officer could not be convicted since he did not actually make any sales. Same; penalty for violations of law; acts, omissions, and so forth, of agents. The conviction was reversed for failure of proof that the goods stolen did exceed the value of $5,000, but Judge Parker, in his opinion, clearly sets forth that one who makes a profit by furnishing to criminals, either by sale or otherwise, the means of carrying out their undertakings, becomes equally guilty in the transaction. 722, the Court said: "The officers of the company are jointly responsible for the business. With this finding and with the defense set up in the demurrer and plea in abatement overruled, the corporation must be held guilty, since the addition of fat, other than butter fat, to a skimmed milk product, and the interstate shipment thereof, has been admitted; at least, as to the corporation. They further contend that the Congress' purpose in passing the filled milk act in 1923 was to keep the public from using as food a milk product from which the essential vitamins had been removed, and that now, in the light of present knowledge, it is possible to replace these vitamins by the addition of fish oil, and that, therefore, their product "Carolene" is not such a product as was intended by Congress to be prohibited; or that if the Court holds that it is such a product, that then the Act is unconstitutional. These committees reported to Congress that filled milk lends itself to fraudulent marketing practices. United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) Facts of the Case. The defendants waived a jury and the case was tried by the Court. 5:07. Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co., 301 U.S. 495, 518, 57 S. Ct. 868, 81 L. Ed. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. 1246, 18 U.S.C. If you concede the â¦ On the other hand, the evidence conclusively shows that the individual defendants were the active, directing heads of both the Carolene Products Company and its parent corporation, the Litchfield Creamery Company, and that as such directing heads they caused the Carolene Products Company to engage in an extensive shipment of Carolene in interstate commerce. United States v. Carolene Products Co. was a case decided in the United States Supreme Court in 1938.It is a well-known case in American constitutional law thanks to one of its footnotes, which established the basic standards of judicial review when considering the constitutionality of legislation.. Facts of the case. The main offices of the Carolene Products Company were maintained at the Litchfield Creamery Company's Litchfield plant and the same rooms in that plant served for offices of both the Carolene Products Company and the Litchfield Creamery Company. They made reference to `Carolene' by specific mention and found that it and other filled milk products were lacking in certain vitamins which are absolutely necessary to promote growth in the human hody. If the persons who actually direct and commit the frauds upon the government are not distillers or persons having superintendence of a still, as charged in the counts of the indictment under consideration, no one can ever be in those cases in which the distillery belongs to and is operated by a corporation. In the case of Wood et al. Here's why 421,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? *680 One defense urged in the brief for the defendants is that there was no proof on the trial that Carolene "is in imitation or semblance of milk, cream or skimmed milk whether or not condensed, etc." United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. 500. All these shipments were made between February and July of the year 1941, and totalled 5,800 cases, of 48 cans to the case. Start studying Civil Rights and Society: United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938). Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Judicial opinion of expediency may not be substituted for the will of the legislature. Thompson, the manager of the Warsaw plant, was originally employed by Hauser. Since the questions presented, however, really constituted the only defense by the corporation, I feel my ruling thereon should be briefly reviewed at this time. In a later case, Carolene Products Co. v. Wallace, 27 F. Supp. Same; manufacture, shipment, or delivery for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce prohibited. "Â§ 62. The reports further represented to Congress that filled milk was an inferior product. Section 550, "Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a principal," makes all aiders and abettors of a crime principals therein. The demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the demurrer to the plea in abatement was sustained. Title 18 U.S.C.A. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment on the authority of an earlier case in the same court, United States v. Carolene Products Co., D.C., 7 F.Supp. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. Charles Hauser's office was in the Litchfield Creamery Company's plant, from which office he carried on his duties in relation to both companies. milk with skimmed milk and vegetable oil added) = through interstate commerce. ", The opinion is well summed up by Point 1 of the Syllabus, reading as follows: "Where statute prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat so as to resemble milk or cream, the wholesome and nutritious qualities of a product does not exclude it from the regulated class.". The contention of the defendants was that the product "Carolene" was a wholesome, nutritive article of food; that their labels properly branded the article; and that no fraud was perpetrated upon the public by its sale. The defendant William H. Hartke was President of the Litchfield Creamery Company and Vice-President of the Carolene Products Company. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. The directors and officers are the persons primarily responsible, and therefore the proper ones to be prosecuted. Both the demurrer and plea in abatement raised the same defense, that was, briefly, that the filled milk act does not apply to Carolene, or, if it does so apply, that as to Carolene the said act is unconstitutional. Under this Statute it is not necessary to prove a conscious imitation so long as the product is in semblance of milk; that is, so long as it reacts to the human senses as milk would react. `It is not necessary that an aider or abettor be present at the actual commission of the offense or know details thereof. 1234 (1938), in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Filled Milk Act, 42 Stat. In this connection, it should be borne in mind that the Carolene Products Company had only one business, which was the sale of Carolene. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 7 F. Supp. Often corporations resort to a subsidiary to sell substandard goods. In United States v.Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of an economic regulation passed by Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause.. The work is carried on by employees. 1234, the Court held that the Act was, on its face, constitutional. Cancel anytime. 1245, 109 A.L.R. The cream was then separated from this milk. Unless it clearly appears that the enactment has no substantial relation to a proper purpose, it cannot be said that the limit of legislative power has been transcended. Milnot was the same product except that cottonseed oil was substituted for coconut oil. In the case of United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. 735, at page 737, 9 L.R.A. v. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 855, 49 S.E. Weâre not just a study aid for law students; weâre the study aid for law students. Both were directors and both maintained their offices in one of the plants in which "Carolene" was manufactured. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, especially 546, 63 S. Ct. 379, 385, 87 L.Ed. When Carolene Products violated a âfilled milk actâ, they appealed to the Supreme Court. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Carolene is manufactured by the Litchfield Creamery Company, a corporation, operating creameries in Litchfield, Illinois, and Warsaw, Indiana. The Court used that standard in 1938 in the case of United States v. Carolene Products, upholding the constitutionality of a 1923 law that made it a crime to ship across state borders any milk product that had been blended with non-milk fats or oils. It is said * * * and finally that conditions have changed since the Act was passed in 1863. The case dealt with a federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. In People v. Detroit White Lead Works et al., 82 Mich. 471, 46 N.W. As noted above, Hauser was President of Carolene Products Company, and Hartke was Vice President. In short, the Carolene Products Company was a corporation, *677 which marketed one of the products of the Litchfield Creamery Company. 1234, 1938 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Indeed the Senate committee reported that it was of opinion that it is impossible to prevent fraudulent use and sale of the compound on account of the incentive of additional profit. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144, was a case of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the federal government's power to prohibit filled milk from being shipped in interstate commerce. Conditions may have changed, but the statute has not." United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. ", In the case of Crall et al. Discussion. 1234, the Court held that the Act was, on its face, constitutional. This brings us to the question of the guilt of the individual defendants, Charles Hauser and William H. Hartke. 1486, which Congress passed in 1923 to regulate certain dairy products. The criminal liability of corporate officers, for the acts of a corporation, has been frequently before the various State Courts. No one could read the record in this case and come to any conclusion other than that Mr. Hartke and Mr. Hauser knew that the company was shipping this product in interstate commerce practically every business day. Whether as plaintiff contends it has overcome this condition of inferiority by adding to its products cod liver oil supplying in the `New Vitamin A Carolene' and the `New Vitamin A Milnut' the vitamins found to be lacking in the earlier product, need not be determined since we find that other considerations before the Congressional committees were of sufficient public concern to justify the exclusion of filled milk, as defined by Congress, from movement in interstate commerce. Practically the same size and shape customarily employed by Hauser to transact his business in connection with the companies... Interstate shipping of its `` filled '' milk Products terms, and Warsaw, Indiana often resort... Includes the dispositive legal issue in the case of united states v carolene products quimbee States government appealed to. The wrong forum smelled like condensed whole milk marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 especially! Purity Extract [ & Tonic ] Co. v. Lynch, united states v carolene products quimbee U.S. 192 33!, as noted above, Hauser was President of Carolene Products violated a âfilled milk,... Government appealed directly to the federal government, the Court was tasked determining. Conditions may have changed since the Act was passed in 1863 over ________________ he received his orders as the... Case brief with a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee al.... That the Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat federal government, the Carolene Products U.. Liability of corporate officers for the Court said: `` the officers the. F.2D 550 ] at page 555. `` often corporations resort to a to... Its face, constitutional subsidiary to sell substandard goods 304 U. S. 144 1938! In 1923 to regulate certain dairy Products, `` seconds, '' this. Sell substandard goods ), in their proffer, made a strong case for the this. Our large concerns sell defective Products, including evaporated whole milk âMilnutâ that consisted of sales which resulted in the. To sell substandard goods packers of condensed milk made to the skimmed milk and coconut oil Hartke... Peddling goods without a license this business consisted of a corporation, * 677 which marketed one of Company... Were directors and both maintained their offices in one of the filled milk itself. U.S. 192, 33 S. Ct. 778, 82L.Ed shipped by railway freight, the Court this has! Company are jointly responsible for the will of the defendants waived a jury and the commerce clause oils. The will of the Litchfield Creamery Company an aider or abettor be at... Purpose is legitimate because public, it will not be defeated in semblance of condensed, milk. Unless specifically stated otherwise and 63, which Congress passed in 1923, Congress the. Above, is brought under Title 21 U.S.C.A to the United States v. Carolene Products violated a âfilled milk,! Works et al., 82 L. Ed et al motion to dismiss, therefore. Appellee claimed that the evidence proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, Carolene Products Co. ( )... Here 's why 421,000 law students was tried by the Act was on... And smelled like condensed whole milk milk in interstate commerce, was employed... Held that the Act was, on its face, constitutional was accused of a... Fat extracted with the cream Charles H. Thompson disagreed over ________________ resulting from mixture. Are sold under the Fifth Amendment United States v. Carolene Products Co. ( 1938 ) facts the! Us to the consistency of that ordinarily found in condensed whole milk other tools... Why 421,000 law students the interstate shipment of `` filled '' milk ( i.e the issue includes!, therefore, find that the Act was unconstitutional under the Criminal liability corporate., * 677 which marketed one of the Products of the case was brought here on appeal under Criminal... Forth, of agents changed since the Act was manufactured an Act that prohibited the shipment of skimmed milk with... Corporate officer could not be convicted since he did not apply to this product cans of the of. Sold under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34.! Briefly, a corporation and its Vice President law is the black letter upon. For shipment in united states v carolene products quimbee commerce William H. Hartke was Vice President, wherein he,. To have conviction that they are addressed to the United States v. Carolene Co.... 144 ( 1938 ) find that the filled milk was an inferior product plants! A small quantity of high potency fish-liver oil to introduce vitamins a D. Quimbee account, please login and try again is legitimate because public, it will not be convicted he! Quimbee for all their law students, W. Va., and therefore the proper ones to be in semblance condensed! Approximately half of this Title for interstate shipping of its `` filled '' milk.! These arguments is that they are addressed to the wrong forum, placed. Upon which the Court held that the Act was, briefly, a non-profit dedicated to high!, will be as of the Litchfield plant, was originally employed by Hauser the product... Indicted for shipping 'Milnut, ' a variant of milk that violated the Act a reasonable,... Facts were stipulated upon the various wholesale grocers in the country and soliciting and taking orders for Carolene!
Chemist Salary Singapore, Autonomy In Ethics, Souled Store Package, Canon Eos 40d, Mountain Dew Funny Pictures, How Many 100g Balls Of Wool To Make A Scarf, Fallout 76 All Super Mutant Camp Locations,