No. 7. DErARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 73 



long since established. The demand that such practices be discarded 

 and replaced by unobjectionable processes seems entirely natural and 

 reasonable to the consumer. The producer, on the other hand, nat- 

 urally sees the facts from another view point ; perceives in many cases 

 no satisfactory alternative method for the operation whose previous 

 methods are under condemnation, or realizes that the rejection of 

 older procedure and the adoption of some substitute may involve a 

 very large modification of his factory and a correspondingly great ex- 

 pense to himself. He is at first impelled by self interest to doubt the 

 need for tire change urged, to excuse the process by the inadequacy or 

 unproven efficiency of other methods, to plead that he is compelled 

 to present methods by competition, particularly from competitors in 

 localities where the legal requirements are less exacting, and to de- 

 mand, as the least consideration to which he is entitled, ample time 

 for the discovery and trying out of new methods for the production 

 and packing of the food products condemned. There are facts on 

 both sides of such cases deserving of serious consideration. The 

 Dairy and Food Commissioner is, hoAvever, charged by law and 

 obliged by his oath of office to execute and not to make the law. He 

 has faithfully endeavored to warn all parties concerned of the require- 

 ments of the law, so that their manufacturing and distributing work 

 might be carried on with the fullest realization of the law's require- 

 ments, but he has consistently refused to grant immunities or exten- 

 sions of time for compliance with the law, where the law has not 

 specifically conferred discretion in such matters upon him. 



There is another matter of administrative policy which it may be 

 hel])fiil to mention. The terms of both the general and special food 

 Acts are in many respects broad rather than specific. Wherever the 

 method of the Legislature has been by definition of an offence, such 

 as the adulteration or misbranding of commodities and there has been 

 no definition of the commodity, questions necessarily arise involving 

 the interpretation of the Act as applied to particular commodities, 

 or, in the case of injurious substances, as to what substances should 

 be classed as such, or, even with reference to substances specifically pro- 

 hibited by name, or as to the meaning of the name and the character 

 of the products included within its scope. It has been the judgment 

 of the Commissioner, after very careful thought, that the prime con- 

 sideration that should govern his decisions relative to such questions 

 is the spirit and intent of the law. In other words, that it is not the 

 function of the executive officer to give to such Acts their narrowest 

 construction, but that instead, he should take such action as to bring 

 to judicial determination all questions of importance raised by any 

 reasonable construction of the Acts committed to him for execution. 

 For otherwise, instead of serving as the defender of the consumer, he 

 becomes an obstruction to the reaching of a judicial determination 



