No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 86, 



to take advantage of tlie opportunity to greatly reduce the cost of 

 manufacture and correspondingly increase their profits. It is diflS- 

 cult to comprehend how any baker who is not utterly lost to every 

 consideration of right and justice could bring himself to patronize 

 the dealers in the evil mixture peddled out at a few cents a pound, 

 or the stale eggs which were sold to bakers at a nominal sum be- 

 cause both dealer and purchaser knew they were beyond use for 

 any decent purpose. Since this business is so entirely disreputable 

 and so very dangerous to the health of perfectly innocent people, 

 it does not seem harsh to demand for such dealers the fullest 

 publicity and the amplest punishment. The man who deliberately 

 poisons the sources of a city's water supply is a greater criminal 

 than the baker who poisons the food he sells to his confiding patrons, 

 but he must have a heart no less evil and he deserves the infliction 

 of a penalty that will bear some adequate relation to his offense 

 and give the public some protection while intimidating others who 

 are tempted to imitate his evil course for the sake of gain. Any 

 adulteration of the food of the people is wrong, for the reason that 

 it is a process of deception, but he who merely cheapens his product 

 by the addition of a harmless foreign substance is an angel of light 

 in comi>arison with the wretch who is willing to imperil the health 

 and shorten the lives of thousands of his fellow beings. For that 

 reason the law should lay a heavy hand upon those who sell poisoned 

 products, and who do it willingly and wilfully for the sake of put- 

 ting money in their purses. The sensation created by the exposures 

 of the year has created a sentiment which will doubtless result in 

 permanent improvement in the direction indicated. Public opinion 

 back of a good law will accomplish much in the right direction. 



THE RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO PORTIONS OF SAMPLES. 



In the appendix to this report will also be found an official tran- 

 script of an important opinion handed down during the year by 

 the Honorable Martin Bell, president judge of Biair county, in which 

 he discusses the question of the power of a defendant to compel the 

 Commonwealth to share with him the sample of goods upon which 

 the prosecution for selling adulterated goods is based. It was con- 

 tended by the Commonwealth that the law does not compel any 

 such practice and the court sustains that contention. The points 

 set forth in the opinion are quite simple and not hard to under- 

 stand. It is shown that the weight of authority is against the claim 

 that the prosecution must disclose to the defendant its line of action 

 and the nature of the evidence it has to produce. While it is 

 permitted in a civil action for the defendant to make a similar claim, 

 and have it allowed, this principle does not apply to prosecutions 

 in the criminal courts. The learned court therefore holds that the 

 contention of the defendant in the particular case under considera- 

 tion that the Commonwealth must divide its samples, giving a por- 

 tion to the defendant for analysis by his own chemist is without 

 virtue and that no such principle rules. This amply sustains the 

 ground taken by the Commonwealth in this and similar cases. It 

 may be added in connection with this decision that the Common- 

 wealth's action in cases of this sort is taken without passion or 

 resentment. The Commonwealth seeks the punishment of no one 

 and its servants heartily rejoice when an accused citizen ia able 

 to establish his innocence. The chemists of the Dairy and Food 



