Opinion of the Court. 340 U.S. securities may go unrecognized in a reorganization when informed estimates of future earnings indicate that they have no investment value.& The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed and that of the District Court is affirmed. Reversed. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK joins, dissenting. I would have the Securities and Exchange Commission take another look, for the reasons indicated in Judge Learned Hand's opinion below, 179 F. 2d 615. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. In Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P:R. Co., 318 U. S. 523, the Court approved a railroad reorganization under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 49 Stat. 911, 11 U. S. C. § 205, in which preferred and common shareholders were wiped out because their equity was not justified by earnings prospects. And in reorganizations under former § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 48 Stat. 912, "The criterion of earning capacity is the essential one . . . Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois, 312 U. S. 510, 526. See 6 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1947), 3849-3859. " Syllabus. DEAN MILK CO. v. CITY OF MADISON ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. No. 258. Argued December 7, 1950.-Decided January 15, 1951. 1. An ordinance of a Wisconsin municipality forbids the sale of milk in the city as pasteurized unless it has been pasteurized and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within five miles of the center of the city. Appellant, an Illinois corporation engaged in gathering and distributing milk from farms in Illinois and Wisconsin, was denied a license to sell its products within the city solely because its pasteurization plants were more than five miles away. Held: The ordinance unjustifiably discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 350-357. (a) Even in the exercise of its unquestioned power to protect the health and safety of its people, a municipality may not erect an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the state, if reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, adequate to conserve legitimate local interests, are available. P. 354. (b) In view of the reasonable and adequate alternatives which are available for the protection of the health and safety of the people of the municipality, the discrimination against interstate commerce inherent in the ordinance violates the Commerce Clause. Pp. 354-356. 2. A second provision of the ordinance in question forbids the sale of milk, or the importation, receipt or storage of milk for sale, within the city except from a source of supply possessing a permit issued after inspection by city officials; and expressly relieves the city officials from any duty to inspect farms located beyond twentyfive miles from the city. Appellant's attack on the constitutional validity of this provision was dismissed by the state court for want of a justiciable controversy. Held: As to the issue thus presented, the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the principles announced in the opinion of this Court. Pp. 350-351, 356-357. 257 Wis. 308, 43 N. W. 2d 480, reversed. An ordinance of a Wisconsin municipality regulating the sale of milk was sustained by the State Supreme Court, Opinion of the Court. 340 U.S. over appellant's objections to its validity under the Federal Constitution. 257 Wis. 308, 43 N. W. 2d 480. On appeal to this Court, reversed and remanded, p. 357. George S. Geffs and Jacob Geffs argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant. J. Arthur Moran was also of counsel. Walter P. Ela and Harold E. Hanson argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees. MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal challenges the constitutional validity of two sections of an ordinance of the City of Madison, Wisconsin, regulating the sale of milk and milk products within the municipality's jurisdiction. One section in issue makes it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it has been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within a radius of five miles from the central square of Madison. Another section, which prohibits the sale of milk, or the importation, receipt or storage of milk for sale, in Madison unless from a source of supply possessing a permit issued after inspection by Madison officials, is attacked insofar as it expressly relieves municipal authorities from any duty to inspect farms 1 General Ordinances of the City of Madison, 1949, § 7.21 provides as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person, association or corporation to sell, offer for sale or have in his or its possession with intent to sell or deliver in the City of Madison, any milk, cream or milk products as pasteurized unless the same shall have been pasteurized and bottled in the manner herein provided within a radius of five miles from the central portion of the City of Madison otherwise known as the Capitol Square, at a plant housing the machinery, equipment and facilities, all of which shall have been approved by the Department of Public Health." 349 Opinion of the Court. located beyond twenty-five miles from the center of the city.2 Appellant is an Illinois corporation engaged in distributing milk and milk products in Illinois and Wisconsin. It contended below, as it does here, that both the five-mile limit on pasteurization plants and the twenty-five-mile limit on sources of milk violate the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the five-mile limit on pasteurization. As to the twenty-fivemile limitation the court ordered the complaint dismissed for want of a justiciable controversy. 257 Wis. 308, 43 N. W. 2d 480 (1950). This appeal, contesting both rulings, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). The City of Madison is the county seat of Dane County. Within the county are some 5,600 dairy farms with total 2 Id., § 7.11, provides in pertinent part as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person to bring into or receive into the City of Madison, Wisconsin, or its police jurisdiction, for sale, or to sell, or offer for sale therein, or to have in storage where milk or milk products are sold or served, any milk or milk product as defined in this ordinance from a source not possessing a permit from the Health Commissioner of the City of Madison, Wisconsin. "Only a person who complies with the requirements of this ordinance shall be entitled to receive and retain such a permit. "On the filing of an application for a permit with the Health Commissioner, he shall cause the source of supply named therein to be inspected and shall cause all other necessary inspections and investigations to be made. The Department of Public Health shall not be obligated to inspect and issue permits to farms located beyond twenty-five (25) miles from the central portion of the City of Madison otherwise known as the Capitol Square. . . ." In upholding § 7.21, note 1, supra, the court relied upon the principles announced by it in Dyer v. City Council of Beloit, 250 Wis. 613, 27 N. W. 2d 733 (1947), judgment vacated, 333 U. S. 825 (1948). 910798 O-51-29 Opinion of the Court. 340 U.S. raw milk production in excess of 600,000,000 pounds annually and more than ten times the requirements of Madison. Aside from the milk supplied to Madison, fluid milk produced in the county moves in large quantities to Chicago and more distant consuming areas, and the remainder is used in making cheese, butter and other products. At the time of trial the Madison milkshed was not of "Grade A❞ quality by the standards recommended by the United States Public Health Service, and no milk labeled "Grade A" was distributed in Madison. The area defined by the ordinance with respect to milk sources encompasses practically all of Dane County and includes some 500 farms which supply milk for Madison. Within the five-mile area for pasteurization are plants of five processors, only three of which are engaged in the general wholesale and retail trade in Madison. Inspection of these farms and plants is scheduled once every thirty days and is performed by two municipal inspectors, one of whom is full-time. The courts below found that the ordinance in question promotes convenient, economical and efficient plant inspection. Appellant purchases and gathers milk from approximately 950 farms in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin, none being within twenty-five miles of Madison. Its pasteurization plants are located at Chemung and Huntley, Illinois, about 65 and 85 miles respectively from Madison. Appellant was denied a license to sell its products within Madison solely because its pasteurization plants were more than five miles away. It is conceded that the milk which appellant seeks to sell in Madison is supplied from farms and processed in plants licensed and inspected by public health authorities of Chicago, and is labeled "Grade A" under the Chicago ordinance which adopts the rating standards recommended by the United States Public Health Serv |