THE ETHICS OF FOOD 535 



which is placed before me and where it is possible to put 

 two constructions upon that analysis, I have invariably put 

 the one on it which protected the consumer. In other words, 

 the man who executes the law or brings the action is neither the 

 judge nor the jury — his duty is simply to see that the intent 

 of the law is carried out and that all cases of apparent violation 

 are brought before the courts. For this reason, I have always 

 ruled that chemical antiseptics which preserve food by 

 destroying germ life are to be excluded in the interests of 

 public health and on that broad principle I have been willing 

 to let the matter go to the courts. In the courts, the defendants 

 have ample opportunity to show to the contrary or the 

 Government has ample opportunity to prove its contention. 

 The utility of science in this respect, of course, is unquestioned ; 

 it would be impossible to bring most of the cases which finally 

 reach the courts under the Food and Drug Act without the aid 

 of one or more of the sciences. 



What, may be asked, is the attitude of scientific men in such 

 matters ? The answer is not a difficult one. The question as 

 to whether a certain substance is injurious to health or not is 

 often an open one and men can honestly arrange themselves on 

 opposite sides. It is not strange, therefore, that in every 

 instance eminent scientific authority is found favouring the use 

 of antiseptics in foods. In such cases the Court not only 

 decides from the preponderating testimony but also judges 

 from the character of the testimony and the reasons for the 

 witnesses being present in court. Unfortunately in the United 

 States, as possibly in other countries, there are many scientific 

 men who are, one might say, professionally engaged as scien- 

 tific advisers to the defendants in suits of this kind. For 

 instance, there are names in American scientific annals which 

 are found quite frequently in cases where the Food and Drug 

 Act is offended, especially where the defendants can afford 

 to employ high-priced talent. I am not criticising the action 

 of these men but only mentioning the fact to show that the 

 courts do not fail to take them into judicial account. This is 

 well shown in the opinion given by Mr. Justice Humphrey of 

 the Southern District of Illinois in considering affidavits of 

 eminent scientific men respecting the nature of whisky. He said: 



"Complainants present sixty-nine of such affidavits and the 

 defendants a lesser number. 



