92 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



Tlie act ck-arlv di'liia-s what shall be deemed an adulterated arti- 

 cle within llie nieaninj; of its terms. The third section is siibdividedi 

 into seven clauses, each detining or designating an article or com- 

 I.ound that shall be considered as adulterated. Food is adulterated 

 under this section: (1) If any substance or substances have been 

 mixed with it so as to lower or depreciate or injuriously affect its 

 rjuality, strength or purity. (2) If any inferior or cheaper substances 

 have been substituted wholly or in part for it. i'i) If any valuable 

 or necessary constituent or ingredient has been wlholly or in part 

 abstracted from it. ^4) If it is an imitation of or sold under the name 

 of another article. (5) If it (consists wholly or in part of a diseased, 

 decomposed, putrid, infected, tainted or rotten animal or vegetable 

 substance or article, whether manufactured or not, or in case of milk 

 if it is the product of a diiseased animal. (6) If it is colored, coated, 

 I)olished or powered, whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, or 

 if by any means it is made to appear better or of greater value than 

 it really is. (7) If it contains an added substance or ingredient which 

 is poisonous or injurious to health. 



Such are the articles which are prohibited from being manufac- 

 tured or sold as food in this Commonwealth. The object of the 

 statute is to protect the public health by securing pure food and to 

 prevent fraud and deception in the manufacture and sale of adul- 

 terated articles of food. 



The purpose of the legislature in the passage of this act is most 

 commendable, and the statute should receive a construction by the 

 courts that will fully and effectively accomplish the object of its 

 enactment. 



It will be observed that the third section is not directed against 

 the manufacture or sale of adulterated food, but declared what shall 

 be deemed and taken to be an adulteration of food. Each of the sev- 

 eral clauses is couched in explicit and unambiguous terms. The 

 language of the clause under w'hich this indictment was framed is 

 plain and admits of but one meaning. It is therefore not necessary 

 to resort to technical rules of construction in aid of its interpreta- 

 tion. 



''Whatever may have been the legislative thought," says Thomp- 

 son, J., in Bradbury vs. Wagenhorst, 54 Pa. 182, ''no ambiguity ex- 

 ists in w^hat they said, and when the words of the statute are plainly 

 expressive of an intent, the interpretation must be in accordance 

 therewith." 



It is not a poisonous or injurious compound resulting from the ad- 

 dition of a foreign ingredient that the seventh clause declares to be 

 an adulterated article. If it were, the position of the defendant 

 would be correct and, under the testimony in the case, he would have 

 been entitled to an acquittal. 



