No. 6. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE. 63 



The specific laws and interpretations are plain. These decisions and opinions 

 clearly and concisely show that the legislature delegated the police powers that 

 were needed in regulating fotid supplies; that oleomargarine cannot legally be 

 served with meals without a proper license; that a guilty knowledge is unneces- 

 sary, and that serving oleomargarine unknowingly is no excuse; that agents 

 for non-resident manufacturers must comply with such laws; that the State 

 cannot totally exclude oleomargarine from sale within Pennsylvania; that the 

 Pennsylvania law is not in contlict with the United States constitution; that 

 both fines and imprisonment can be imposed upon violators; that courts can 

 issue injunctions to restrain illegal sales of oleomargarine; that the sale of 

 colored oleomargarine is illegal; etc., etc. 



This compendium is thaiefore in great demand and worthy of more general 

 circulation for the benefit of the trade. 



A CONVICTED RETAILER HAS LEGAL REDRESS. 



Under the provisions of the Pure Food Act approved June 1st, 1907, a defend- 

 ant who has been convicted and fined for selling adulterated or unwholesome 

 goods has legal redress. He can institute civil proceedings, and if he succeeds 

 in establishing the fact that he bought the goods in good faith, and that he did 

 not in any manner change their condition after their delivery and sale, the 

 civil suit for damages and a repayment of the fine and costs paid will be per- 

 mitted by the courts. 



Section 8 of the aforesaid act reads as follows: "Any person who shall have 

 been adjudged to have violated any of the provisions of this act, by reason 

 of the purchase or sale of an article adulterated or misbranded within the 

 meaning of this act, and who shall have purchased the article, so found to 

 be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, under a guar- 

 anty from the vendor thereof, to the effect that the same is not adulterated 

 or misbranded within the meaning of this act, or the act of Congress passed 

 June thirty, nineteen hundred and six, shall have a right of action against the 

 guarantor for the recovery of such damages as shall have been sustained by 

 reason of such adulteration or misbranding; and such person shall, in addition 

 thereto, be entitled to recover punitive damages; and such person shall fur- 

 ther have the right to set oft any sum or sums of money which shall have 

 been instituted against said person for the violation of any of the provisions 

 of this act, against any claim or right of action which the guarantor may have, 

 arising out of the sale of the article or articles in question, or otherwise, and 

 which shall include all expenses and reasonable attorney's fees." 



This paragraph of the new law is attracting much attention, as it is a new 

 feature of pure food legislation in Pennsylvania. That it is commendable and 

 wise is generally believed by retail grocers, since it serves as an additional 

 safe-guard to their interests. Under the old laws, it was perhaps purely 

 optional for the manufacturer and jobber to compensate the retail merchant in 

 case he was mulcted in a fine, but under the present law, there is ample redress. 



RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYES FOR VIOLATIONS. 



Although the question of responsibility of employes in connection with the 

 sale of oleomargarine, renovated butter and other articles of food has been 

 raised in very many instances, the work of the Dairy and Food Bureau during 

 a long term of years, has now clearly established that both the servant who 

 actually sells, and the master who employs him, are equally liable to con- 

 viction. 



This is an exception from the general rule in law that a master is not 

 criminally responsible for the acts of his servant if done without knowledge, 

 express or implied, though there is reasonable evidence of an expressed or im- 

 plied actual or constructive authority on the part of the master, and he is 

 therefore, as a general rule, liable. There are those who claim that the court 

 should treat the master as the real offender, though taking no part in the 

 offense and perhaps without any knowledge of it. The Dairy and Food offl- 

 cials have always carefully considered all claims of this nature. 



If the master expressly prohibited a servant from doing a criminal act, and 

 the servant nevertheless did it without the masters knowledge or consent, the 

 liability could very properly be placed solely upon the servant: but these cases 

 are so infrequent that they do not merit any serious discussion. As a rule, the 

 Dairy and Food Bureau has experienced very little trouble in placing the re- 

 sponsibilities for transgressions of the law where they belonged. 



MISBRANDING OF FOOD PRODUCTS FORBIDDEN. 



The determination of the Dairy and Food authorities to enforce the law 

 relating to the misbranding of food products and insisting upon an honest 

 and trulhful designation, is becoming better known to both the manufacturer 

 and jobber. The proper branding of all such articles of food will be insisted 

 upon, and a special effort to bring about this reform has already been inaugu- 



