No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 19 



As a consequence, these laws differ widely in their reqiiireineuts 

 and are embarrassing to manufacturers and jobbers whose foods go 

 into all sections of the country. Those who are m charge of the en- 

 forcement of the pure food laws in the several states, are unanimous 

 in the conviction, that a National Pure Food law is a necessity, if 

 freedom from adulteration in food is ever to be a reality. State laws 

 are, necessarih', confined in their scope, to State boundaries, and 

 manufacturers and jobbers living outside of these lines, cannot be 

 reached. All that can be done, is to arrest the dealer in the State, 

 who handles their goods, and vrho, not infrequently, is ionocent of 

 any iuteution to deceive or cause injury to the public health. 



In a pa[)er recently presented by me before the National Associa- 

 tion of Dairy and Food Commissioners, o« this subject, I stated that 

 a National food law should have six purposes, clearly defined: 



"1st. It should protect the public health. 



"2d. It should prevent fraud. 



"3d. Such a law should protect foreign commerce. 



"4:th. It should provide for the proper labeling of all food products 

 placed upon the markets. 



"5tli. It should provide tor the fixing of standards. 



"6th. The law should provide for the publication of the results 

 of the work of the Bureau." 



Such a law has been prepared, and has the endorsement of the 

 National Association of Dairy and Food Commissioners, and will be 

 presented before Congress at its next meeting. It should have the 

 active support of all who are interested in securing pure food for the 

 people. 



SUPREME COURT DECISION. 



A most important decision has been handed down by the Supreme 

 Court of Pennsylvania affecting the question of the amount of a sub- 

 stance, which is in itself poisonous, that can be added to a food under 

 the Pure Food Law of the State. The case is known as that of the 

 Commonwealth vs. John W. Kevin, appealed from the Superior Court 

 of Pennsylvania to the Supreme Court of the State. The opinion 

 was filed by Judge Mestrezat, March 3, 1902. The case is stated 

 as follows: 



The defendant, who is engaged in the grocery business in the city 

 of Philadelphia, v,as tried and convicted in the court of quarter 

 sessions of Philadelphia county on an indictment charging him with 

 having sold "one pint of raspberry syrup, the said raspberry syrup 

 then and there containing an added substance and ingredient, to wit, 

 salicylic acid, which is poisonous and injurious to health." The in- 

 dictment was found under the act of June 26, 1895, P. L. 317, entitled 

 "An act to provide against the adulteration of food and providing for 

 the enforcement thereof," and commonly known as the Pure Food 

 Law. 



