the law has not been violated, or if it is believed by the department that a prosecution is unwarranted because of irregularity of sample, or for other reason, the dealer is notified that no further action will be taken with reference to that sample. No information is given in any case by an inspector or branch laboratory of the Bureau of Chemistry regarding the report of an inspection of a factory or the result of an analysis. No statement is made at any time regarding the analysis of a sample that is found to be in accordance with the law. No certificate of analysis is given, and no report given out other than the notice of a violation of the law.1 1 F. I. D. 69. "You will see by the testimony in this case, that in each of these cases a government officer went to the place of business of the parties named and bought from them bottles containing this mixture, and he sent them to the laboratory— one to the Boston and the other to the Chicago laboratory, all passed upon by the government authorities and by them found to be adulterated. Then what follows? The government does not put a defendant to trial because of that inquiry alone, but it goes further and says. If that be found to be so from the examinations made of this product (and you will remember that the officers of the government who bought these articles, testified here that they sent two bottles to one place, two bottles to another place, and the remaining two bottles were left with the person from whom they were taken), as shown in those bottles, that they had been adulterated, and that they had been misbranded. Then they were quired to go further after that was re ascertained. 'Finding that they were adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause notice thereof to be given to the party from whom such samples were obtained.' So this defendant was notified by the Secretary of Agriculture that those articles had been bought and that they had been found to be adulterated; but before authorizing any action to be taken by the district attorney, a hearing was had, at which the defendant was authorized to appear, and after that hearing (the Department being still satisfied, from the hearing, that the articles had been adulterated or misbranded), it became the duty of the Secretary under this Act of Congress, to transmit to the district attorney instruc tions to begin the proceedings, together with a copy of the analysis made at the time of the examination." After quoting those parts of the statute defining adulteration and misbranding, the court proceeds: "So you see what the purpose of Congress was, that no one § 502. Seizure of Adulterated or Misbranded Articles. There can be no seizure of the adulterated or misbranded articles before the information or libel for their confiscation is filed. Rule 23 rather than rule 22 of the Proceedings in Admiralty controls in such instances. Of course, seizure is not necessary to give the District Court jurisdiction." But after information filed the process may be issued and the articles seized.3 A private person can not make the seizure provided for by the statute." "As to adulterated articles, it is a misdemeanor (1) to ship from one State to another; (2) to receive and deliver, or offer to deliver the same for pay, in unbroken packages. Such articles are liable to seizure and forfeiture under section ten: (1) when in the course of being transported from State to State; (2) when, having been transported, they remain (a) unloaded, or (b) unsold, or (c) in the original packages."'5 who is desirous of knowing what the law is in that regard may make any mistake about it. The law requires the manufacturer to be honest in his statement of the contents of the package; it requires him to be honest in stating the truth upon the labels put upon it. That is all there is to the Act. That is what the Act is intended to accomplish, and which, if properly enforced, in my judgment, will accomplish. "It is the duty of you [as jurors] and this court to obey the law and to enforce it; to enforce this statute as you would enforce every other statute. But it is not out of place for me to say here, that in the judgment of the court, no Act of Congress has been passed in recent years of more importance than this one. "In dealing with foodstuffs, the seller should, and ought to know, what he is selling, and, on the other hand, the buyer should know what he is buying. "This statute is not to be evaded by a mere subterfuge. It is to be enforced according to its letter and its spirit, and when that is done no one suffers by it." United States v. Edward Westen Tea & Spice Co. Notice of Judgment 194. 1 United States v. George Sproul & Co., 185 Fed. 405; United States v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302. 3 Ibid. 4 United States v. Two Barrels of Eggs, 185 Fed. 302. 5 United States v. Five Boxes of Assafoetida, 181 Fed. 561. § 503. Bond for Release of Articles Seized. In a proviso to section ten provisions are made for the release of the articles seized by the government. It is as follows: "Upon the payment of the costs of such libel proceedings and the execu tion and delivery of a good and sufficient bond to the effect that such articles shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of this Act, or the laws of any State, Territory, District, or insular possession, the court may by order direct that such articles be delivered to the owner thereof." 1 Where adulterated foods or drugs have been imported, and they have for that reason been refused admission by the Secretary of the Treasury, said Secretary may deliver them to the assignee under section eleven pending their examination by and the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture, "on execution of a penal bond for the amount of the full invoice value of such goods, together with the duty thereon." On a "refusal to return such goods for any cause to the custody of the Secretary of the Treasury, when demanded, for the purpose of excluding them from the country, or for any other purpose, said consignee" forfeits "the full amount of the bond." Regulation 35 covers the question of the bond. § 504. Publication of Result of Examination or Proceedings in Court Food Inspection Decisions. Where the Secretary of Agriculture has certified to the District Attorney that he has found certain foods or drugs to be adulterated or improperly branded, and that officer has brought proceedings in court and obtained a judgment to that effect, section four provides that "notice shall be given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules and regulations" adopted for that purpose. Regulation 4 provides that: (a) When a judgment of the court shall have been rendered there may be a publication of the findings of the examiner or analyst, together with the findings of the 66 1 N. J. 1016; N. J. 1017. court. (b) This publication may be made in the form of circulars, notices, or bulletins, as the Secretary of Agriculture may direct, not less than thirty days after judgment. (e) If an appeal be taken from the judgment of the court before such publication, notice of the appeal shall accompany the publication." This statute and this regulation only contemplate the publication of the result of those instances where the district attorney has been officially notified of the adulteration or misbranding of an article of food or drugs, and pursuant to such notice has brought suit and obtained a judgment of the court that it was adulterated or misbranded. It does not apply to those instances where the district attor ney upon his own initiative brings an action to have articles of food or drugs declared forfeited, but the practice is to publish the judgment in such instances if it results in a judgment of forfeiture. A notice of this kind is called "Notice of Judgment," and over one thousand of them have been published. In some of them appear opinions of the court; in others, where no opinion has been given, the mere result, preceded by a statement of the matter in issue, accompanied by a copy of the decree, is published. The object of publishing these notices is to give wide publicity that the defendant has been guilty of putting on the market adulterated or misbranded food or drugs, so that purchasers may be put on their guard. If judgment has resulted against the prosecution, no notice of it is given, and that is manifestly just, so as not to cast any suspicion upon the article of food or drugs it was charged was adulterated. The Board of Food and Drug Inspection give out many opinions, which are approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and published by the Department of Agriculture, relative to the Food and Drugs Act. Many of these are in answer to inquiries, and now amount to over one hundred. In a circular letter the Secretary of Agriculture has explained these decisions and the attitude of the Department toward them as follows: "Many letters have reached the Department asking for action on very important questions connected with the Food and Drugs Act which require much study to secure all the facts necessary to the rendering of a just decision. The following general statement shows the attitude of the Department on questions of this kind: All manufacturers and dealers have copies of the law and regulations, or can secure them and study them carefully. Each manufacturer and dealer should conduct his business as nearly as possible in harmony with the law as he interprets it. When each particular problem involved reaches a solution in this Department, it is hoped it will be found that the manufacturers and others have come also to a similar decision in the matter. Public notice will be given of each decision as it is issued, that the manufacturers and dealers may be informed, and be able at once to place themselves in line with the decisions of the Department. In this way it is hoped that all injustice will be avoided in the execution of the law and every one be given an opportunity to put himself right and to have due notice of decisions which may be made. This Department will use every endeavor to reach prompt decisions, but must take time to collect the facts and subject them to a proper study; otherwise the decisions would not have the value which should attach to them in important matters affecting the execution of the law." In another instance it was said: "The opinions or decisions of this Department do not add anything to the rules and regulations nor take anything away from them. They, therefore, are not to be considered in the light of rules and regulations. On the other hand, the decisions and opinions referred to express the attitude of this Department in relation to the interpretation of the law and the rules and regulations, and they are published for the information of the officials of the Department who may be charged with the execution of the law, and especially to acquaint manufacturers, jobbers and dealers with the attitude of this Department in these matters. They are, therefore, issued more in an advisory than a mandatory spirit. It is clear that if the manufacturers, jobbers and dealers interpret the rules and regulations in the same manner as they are interpreted by this De 1 F. I. D. 49. |