698 ANNUAL. REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



through efforts of the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of 

 Justice, there was a very encouraging prospect at the close of the 

 fiscal year that proper action would be taken against the persons 

 responsible for the killing and wounding of the department's 

 employees and that conditions in that section of Georgia would here- 

 after conduce to a more satisfactory accomplishment of tick eradica- 

 tion. 



Many papers of various kinds, including statements of issues, briefs, 

 and memoranda on legal mattere, were prepared at the request of the 

 officials of this department for submission to the Attorney General, 

 the Secretary of the Interior, the Comptroller General, and the officials 

 of other departments. Also, many service and regulatory announce- 

 ments, circulars, and bulletins, referred to this office for considera- 

 tion from a legal aspect, were reviewed and comment made thereon. 



Briefs and memoranda on legal questions were furnished in many 

 of the cases reported to the Department of Justice for prosecution, 

 and assistance was given in the trials of some of the cases. Among 

 the important cases in which this office assisted, either in the prepara- 

 tion of the briefs or in the trials, or both, were United States v. II. E. 

 Smith, United States v. Strange Bros. Hide Co., United States v. F. M. 

 McGowan Co., United States v. William H. Gordin, United States 

 V. S. E. Avery, United States v. Henry S. Horkheimer, all involving 

 suits for the recovery of profits made by licensed wool dealers in ex- 

 cess of the rate of profits fixed by the War Industries Board; United 

 States V. Ben Rosenbaum, Leon Rosenbaum, and Percy A. Matthews, 

 a criminal prosecution based on the charge of conspiracy to defraud 

 the Government; the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago et al. 

 V. Olsen et al., a suit instituted to test the constitutionality of 

 the grain futures act; United States v. John Dobry Manufacturing 

 Co.; United States v. B. & M. External Remedy; United States v. 

 Crab Orchard Mineral Water; United States v. 154 Sacks Oats; 

 United States v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.; United States v. Sherer 

 Gillett Co.; United States v. 200 Cases Canned Salmon; United States 

 V. Crisifulli Bros.; A. O. Anderson Co. v. United States; Douglas 

 Packing Co. v. United States; Duffy -Mott Co. v. United States; 

 W. B. Wood Manufacturing Co. v. United States; United States v. 

 Ninety-five Barrels Vinegar, More or Less, alleged apple-cider vine- 

 gar, all involving violations of the food and drugs act; United States 

 V. W. E. Pierce, a case arising under the animal quarantine law; 

 United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis; United 

 States V. East St. Louis Junction Railroad Co., involving suits imder 

 the 28-hour law ; and United States v. Alexander Schaper, involving 

 a suit to recover possession of a Center Market stand. 



Forms of indictments and informations were prepared by this office 

 in practically all of the criminal violations referred to the United 

 States attorneys for prosecution under the regulatory laws of the de- 

 partment. Forms of complaints in all 28-hour law violations were 

 likewise prepared in this office and transmitted to the United States 

 attorneys on which to base suits against carriers to recover from them 

 the penalties prescribed by that law. When feasible, libels were also 

 prepared in seizure proceedings arising under section 10 of the food 

 and drugs act and forwarded to the United States attorneys. The 

 preparation of these pleadings not only materially aided the United 

 States attorne3''s in handling the cases but greatly expedited their 

 consideration by the courts. 



