No. 6. DEPARTxMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 93 



The evidence iuti'odueed ou Ibe tiial and admitted by the court, 

 however, was to show that the foreign substance added to the food 

 product was poisouous and injurious to health. That is clearly what 

 the clause declares shall constitute an adulteration. Its language is: 

 "If it (the adulterated food) contains any added substance or ingredi- 

 ent which is poisonous or injurious to health." The terms of the 

 clause, therefore, declare against a compound that if formed by the 

 addition of a poisonous or injurious ingredient and not against a 

 compound that is poisonous or injurious to health. 



This interpretation is supported by the plain and explicit language 

 of the clause as well as by the manifest purpose of the Legislature in 

 its enactment. An article resuliing from the addition of a poisonous 

 substance, the Legislature believed would be unhealthy, and, hence, 

 its manufacture and sale is forbidden by the first section of the 

 act. The guilt of the defendant, therefore, does not depend upon the 

 nature or character of the compound resulting from the addition of 

 the salicylic acid to the fruit syrup, but was to be determined solely 

 upon the poisonous or injurious qualities of the acid, which was the 

 ingredient added to the food. 



The seventh clause of the act, as construed, does not offend against 

 any provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. It does 

 not prevent the admixture of pure articles as a food, nor prohibit 

 the addition of a healthful ingredient as a fruit preservative. 



It is directed against the introduction into a food product of a 

 substance foreign to it and of a poisonous or injurious nature. As 

 said above, the purpose of the act was two-fold: To protect the pub- 

 lic health, and to prevent fraud and deception in the manufacture and 

 sale of adulterated food. 



It is within the province of the General Assembly to determine 

 whether the addition of a poisonous or injurious substance to a food 

 article endangers the health of the citizens of the State, who use the 

 compound; and if it does, then it is clearly within the police power of 

 the State to prohibit the manufacture and sale of the adulterated 

 article as well as to protect the public from imposition or fraud in 

 the sale of it. 



The exercise of such authority by the Legislative Department of 

 the Government does not transcend the constitutional limits of its 

 power. In Powell vs. Commonwealth, 114 Pa., 294, iSterrett, J., after 

 reviewing the cases holding legislation to be constitutional on the 

 ground that it was the lawful exercise of the police power of the 

 State, says: '"The manufacture, sale and keeping with intent to sell, 

 may all alike be prohibited by the Legislature, if, in their judgment, 

 the protection of the public from injury or fraud requires it. To 

 deny the authority of the Legislature to do so, is to attack all that 

 is vital in the police power. To refuse recognition of the power in a 



