STATE DAIEY ASSOCIATION. 455 



which I have called your attention to, I have had coiTespondence and 

 have had intervievps with creamerymen in our State who have shown at 

 these exhibitions and who have been "sore," who have felt that they did 

 not have fair treatment. It has seemed to me that these men have not 

 loolied at the subject from the broadest standpoint, and that is the only 

 way to make progress. When you consider that in the judging of the 

 products shown at this Association, every year, so far as I can recollect, 

 we have had judges who have known nobody showing; and that all the 

 exhibits have been shown by numbers, and the judges were entirely 

 ignorant of who made the butter, I think any charges made of unfair 

 treatment are founded simply on imagination. I don't believe there is a 

 Daii-y Association in the United States that has offered fairer treatment 

 to its members than the Indiana Association, and I feel just exactly as 

 Mr. Drischel. The opportunity which is given in these exhibits when 

 there is a generous money premium offered giives a good opportunity for 

 persons to show their butter, and also secure some reward for their labor. 

 I think that statement is proper under the circumstances. 



Now, we have with us today Dr. Hurty, who is Secretary of our State 

 Board of Health, and, owing to the absence of some speakers on the 

 morning's program, and as Dr. Hurty wishes to get away early owing to 

 pressure of business, I have seen fit to change the program somewhat, 

 and hear him at this time in place of Mr. Commons, who is not here. 

 I will invite Dr. Hurty to come forward and discuss the subject of 



WHAr OUR PURE FOOD LAWS HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED. 



DR. J. N. HURTY, INDIANAPOLIS. 



Mr. President— The pure food law of Indiana was passed in 1899, and 

 this Association had something to do witli that very excellent law. The 

 British Food Journal, in its August number, 1901, gives high praise to this 

 law, and also to the rules of the State Board of Health establishing stand- 

 ards and defining adulterations. 



As I say, it was passed in 1S99, but no provision was made for its 

 enforcement, and, as we all know, no law will enforce itself. It went 

 througli without any trouble whatever, but when it came to an appropria- 

 tion to enforce it, then the Legislature stopped right there. The State 

 Board of Health has never done anything towards its enforcement, al- 

 though charged directly with its enforcement. As I said, this is because 

 no appropriation and no laboratory has been furnished with which to 

 effect enforcement. It is obviously impossible for the law to enforce 

 itself. The State Board of Health presented tliis fact to the Legislature 



